Loading ITAT cases…
276 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the DVO's determined value and the consideration paid for the property should be assessed as income of the purchasers under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The AO and CIT(A) were found to have rightly made and sustained these additions.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the DVO's valuation and the consideration paid for the property should be assessed as income of the purchasers under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The AO and CIT(A) were found to have rightly made and sustained the additions.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot question the legality of the original assessment order passed under Section 153C in the present proceedings, which are in pursuance to a Section 263 order. The original assessment order had attained finality as it was not challenged by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot question the legality of the original assessment order passed under Section 153C in the present proceedings, which are in pursuance to a Section 263 order. The original assessment order had attained finality as it was not challenged by the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals. For the delayed appeal, it was held that there was no reasonable cause for the delay as the CIT(A) had already adjudicated the issue in the original order. The second appeal was also dismissed as the rectification petition was found to be an attempt to file a further appeal against the original order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot question the legality of the original assessment order passed under Section 153C in the present proceedings, which are in pursuance to a Section 263 order. The original assessment order had attained finality as it was not challenged by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were not bona fide and did not constitute a reasonable cause for condonation. Consequently, the petition for condonation of delay was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were not bona fide and did not constitute a reasonable cause for condonation. Consequently, the petition for condonation of delay was rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's ex-parte order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal deleted the enhancement made by the CIT(A) due to lack of notice. For the original addition, considering the assessee's co-relation of majority of transactions with their business, the addition was restricted to Rs. 5.00 lakhs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the land was agricultural and thus the compensation received was exempt. The Tribunal also considered the interest received on compensation to be part of the compensation and therefore exempt.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is an approved gratuity trust and its income is exempt under Section 10(25)(iv), it was not required to file a return of income or an audit report. Therefore, the denial of exemption was unjustified.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned short delays in filing appeals. It addressed the jurisdictional issue of assuming jurisdiction for search assessments in the absence of seized material and when assessments had not abated. The Tribunal also dealt with disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the disputed tax under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing before the Assessing Officer based on the principle of natural justice. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid by the assessee.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing before the Assessing Officer based on the principle of natural justice. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss on ECB utilized for acquiring domestic assets is revenue in nature, following the Supreme Court's decision in Wipro Finance Ltd. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground related to disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income due to lack of submissions.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine the issue of sale consideration and the fair market value as on 01.04.1981.
The Tribunal held that Section 43A was not applicable as the assets were acquired indigenously. Since the assessee had capitalized the expenditure and claimed depreciation over years, and the original assessments were final, the depreciation claim was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause for the initial delay and the Supreme Court's directions regarding pandemic-related delays. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte and non-speaking order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues were decided in favour of the assessee by coordinate benches, holding that payments made before the due date of filing the return are allowable. However, to verify if the payments were indeed made before the due date, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it due to reasonable cause. It also set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have examined the issues independently for each assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have examined the issues independently for each assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it due to reasonable cause. It also set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions are paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have examined the issues independently for each assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and referred to a coordinate bench decision that allowed such claims if deposited before the return filing due date. However, since the assessment was under section 143(1), the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions are paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective.