Loading ITAT cases…
116 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim or disallowance does not automatically amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee's claims were considered bona fide, and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that excise incentives, interest on FDRs made for business compulsions, and income from scrap sales are integral parts of the business and eligible for deduction under Section 80IB. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim or disallowance does not automatically amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee's claims were considered bona fide, and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal found that the abstinence from proceedings was due to a reasonable cause. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide one opportunity for the assessee to make submissions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not retain the wrongly deducted TDS without depositing it or refunding it to the customers. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine the correctness of TDS deduction, timely deposit, and remedial measures taken by the bank.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not retain the wrongly deducted TDS without depositing it or refunding it to the customers. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine the correctness of TDS deduction, timely deposit, and remedial measures taken by the bank.
The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a reasonable cause (non-receipt of notice by the assessee) and deserved to be condoned. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a reasonable cause (non-receipt of notice) and deserved to be condoned. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to make submissions.
The Tribunal found that the abstinence from proceedings was due to a reasonable cause. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide one opportunity for the assessee to make submissions.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard. This was done in the interest of justice, despite the assessee's defiance of notices.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not legally sustainable. The Tribunal found that the advances in question had already been enquired into during the original assessment proceedings under Section 153A, and all material facts were disclosed in the balance sheet. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was annulled.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not retain the wrongly deducted TDS without depositing it or refunding it to the customers. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine the correctness of TDS deduction, timely deposit, and remedial measures taken by the bank.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of substantial expansion under Section 80IC is covered by a High Court judgment. Given the lack of detailed examination of facts, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in granting exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) as the provisions apply institute-wise, not assessee-wise. The addition under Section 68 was deleted as the amount, though from third parties, was utilized for charitable purposes and thus eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by a High Court decision which allowed deduction for substantial expansion under Section 80IC. The matter was therefore set aside to the AO for necessary relief.