Loading ITAT cases…
69 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits. The CIT(Appeals) should have decided the appeal on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to appear.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D is not applicable for the assessment year 2006-07. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the expenditure at 2% of the exempted income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have based the penalty confirmation solely on the quantum addition appeal without independently examining the penalty levy. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 49 of the Act, when a property is inherited, the cost of the property to the previous owner (the father) should be considered for indexation. The lower authorities' decision was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the wife's savings and source of funds for the investment needed to be examined, especially since her return was filed for a subsequent year. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal found that the nature of the receipt as loan and the nature of repayment were not clear. It noted that if it was a loan, it could not be treated as income upon receipt, and if treated as income, it could not be a loan.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E. The amendment effective from June 1, 2015, enabled such adjustments.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E. The amendment effective from June 1, 2015, enabled such adjustments.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E. The amendment effective from June 1, 2015, enabled such adjustments.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E. The amendment effective from June 1, 2015, enabled such adjustments.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E. The amendment effective from June 1, 2015, enabled such adjustments.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E. The amendment effective from June 1, 2015, enabled such adjustments.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E. The amendment effective from June 1, 2015, enabled such adjustments.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E. The amendment effective from June 1, 2015, enabled such adjustments.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E. The amendment effective from June 1, 2015, enabled such adjustments.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E. The amendment effective from June 1, 2015, enabled such adjustments.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E. The amendment effective from June 1, 2015, enabled such adjustments.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E. The amendment effective from June 1, 2015, enabled such adjustments.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E. The amendment effective from June 1, 2015, enabled such adjustments.