Loading ITAT cases…
268 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary activity of constructing and leasing buildings to corporate houses without carrying out charitable activities was not eligible for exemption under Section 11. However, the Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim on assets, following a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary activity of constructing and leasing buildings to corporate houses without carrying out charitable activities was not eligible for exemption under Section 11. However, the Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim on assets, following a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the late fee charged was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the late fee charged was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision at that time.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A at that time. Therefore, the late fees charged were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order, stating that reopening based solely on audit objections without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer is not permissible. The grounds raised on merits were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary activity of constructing and leasing buildings to corporate houses without carrying out charitable activities was not eligible for exemption under Section 11. However, the Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim on assets, following a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the late fees charged were invalid.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The Department did not oppose this request. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the actual exempt income of Rs. 73,062/-.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the late fee charged was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A at that time. Therefore, the late fees charged were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A at that time. Therefore, the late fees charged were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary activity of constructing and leasing buildings to corporate houses without carrying out charitable activities was not eligible for exemption under Section 11. However, the Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim on assets, following a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary activity of constructing and leasing buildings to corporate houses without carrying out charitable activities was not eligible for exemption under Section 11. However, the Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim on assets, following a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary activity of constructing and leasing buildings to corporate houses without carrying out charitable activities was not eligible for exemption under Section 11. However, the Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim on assets, following a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeals.