Loading ITAT cases…
268 orders · Page 3 of 6
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 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 a 16-day delay should not prevent the assessee from seeking justice. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and pass a speaking order on merits after providing a hearing opportunity.
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 allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The respondent did not object to the withdrawal.
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 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'. 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 and dismissing the appeals.
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 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 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, due to the absence of an 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'. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without condoning it.
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 technicalities. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.
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 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 the appeal 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 and dismissing the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the grounds challenging the computation of the deduction under Section 10B. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the computation in light of Supreme Court decisions regarding the exclusion of expenses from export and total turnover, and the adjustment of brought forward losses.
The Tribunal found contradictory facts regarding the property sale and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the issue. The AO needs to verify if the banks sold the property directly or if the assessee sold it and then paid the loans. The claim for bad debts was also to be verified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the liberal approach adopted in such matters and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contribution to PF/ESI is allowable if paid before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), even if paid after the due date under the respective Acts. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B has prospective application only. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, the amended provisions are not applicable.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of investment in property to the AO, directing re-consideration after giving the assessee an opportunity to file necessary evidence. Similarly, the issue of difference in cost of construction was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the full value of consideration for capital gains should include the cost of the flats received and the non-refundable deposit, proportionate to the assessee's share. The benefit of indexation for cost of acquisition should be allowed from the date the previous owner held the asset.
The Tribunal held that amortization of goodwill is an extraordinary item and not an operating cost for transfer pricing analysis. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee, following its own earlier decisions and High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration of Rs. 7,61,82,000 was indeed received by the HUF and subsequently distributed among its members. Therefore, the cash deposits in the individual assessee's account were accepted as arising from the HUF's property sale proceeds.
The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred for the production of tele serials is revenue in nature and not capital, as it does not create an enduring benefit or asset. Therefore, it should be allowed as a deduction when incurred.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the assessee's claim of apportioning common expenses in the ratio of 50:50 based on the area. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities constituted business and that the area-based allocation was reasonable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the assessee's claim of apportioning common expenses in the ratio of 50:50 based on the area. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities constituted business and that the area-based allocation was reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by inserting Explanation 2 is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the deduction for delayed employee PF contribution is allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, if the employees' contribution was paid before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions are paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective.
The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, including Explanation 2, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal found contradictory facts regarding the property sale and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the issue. The AO needs to verify if the banks sold the property directly or if the assessee sold it and then paid the loans. The claim for bad debts was also to be verified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the assessee's claim of apportioning common expenses in the ratio of 50:50 based on the area. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities constituted business and that the area-based allocation was reasonable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the penalty order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The order of the ITAT was received by the Pr.CIT on 22.01.2016, and the six-month period for passing the penalty order expired on 31.07.2016, while the penalty was imposed on 29.03.2017.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to interest on refund as per Section 244A, but not 'interest on interest'. The Tribunal also held that the analogy from Section 140A for adjusting payments cannot be imported to Section 244A for computing interest.
The Tribunal held that when a revised return is filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(5) of the Act, it should be considered a valid return. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the set-off of brought forward losses.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration of Rs. 7,61,82,000 was indeed received by the HUF and subsequently distributed among its members. Therefore, the cash deposits in the individual assessee's account were accepted as arising from the HUF's property sale proceeds.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to dealers were in the nature of commission and liable for TDS under Section 194H. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS was upheld.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness. The appeal was admitted for adjudication, indicating that the merits of the case would be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions and Special Bench rulings. It held that deduction u/s 10B should be computed by reducing expenses from both export and total turnover, and MAT credit should be allowed inclusive of surcharge and education cess.
The Tribunal found contradictory facts regarding the property sale and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the issue. The AO needs to verify if the banks sold the property directly or if the assessee sold it and then paid the loans. The claim for bad debts was also to be verified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the assessee's claim of apportioning common expenses in the ratio of 50:50 based on the area. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities constituted business and that the area-based allocation was reasonable.