Loading ITAT cases…
104 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty orders were not time-barred. The assessees' contention of reasonable cause for non-furnishing information was also rejected.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty orders were not time-barred. The assessees' contention of reasonable cause for non-furnishing information was also rejected.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty orders were not time-barred. The assessees' contention of reasonable cause for non-furnishing information was also rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasons of substantial justice and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasons of substantial justice and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasons of substantial justice and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasons of substantial justice and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasons of substantial justice and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasons of substantial justice and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasons of substantial justice and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasons of substantial justice and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasons of substantial justice and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasons of substantial justice and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasons of substantial justice and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The registration certificate alone is not sufficient.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer is not bound solely by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty orders were not time-barred. The assessees' contention of reasonable cause for non-furnishing information was also rejected.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty orders were not time-barred. The assessees' contention of reasonable cause for non-furnishing information was also rejected.
The Tribunal held that the ITO (Intelligence) has the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) with prior approval. It also found that the penalty was imposed within the prescribed time limits and that the assessee did not provide any reasonable cause for non-compliance.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed penalty orders without hearing the assessees, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed penalty orders without hearing the assessees, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The registration certificate alone is not sufficient.
The Tribunal held that the ITO (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 133(6) and that the penalty imposed was within the time limit prescribed by Section 275(1)(c). No reasonable cause was found for non-furnishing the information.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasons of substantial justice and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that units of mutual funds are distinct from 'shares' as defined under Indian company law and the DTAA. Therefore, gains from their alienation are taxable only in the country of residence of the alienator, as per Article 13(5) of the India-UAE DTAA.
The Tribunal partly allowed the commission disallowance by allowing 1% of sales turnover as a deductible expense. For sundry creditors, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to produce confirmations.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) has the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty order was not barred by limitation. The Tribunal also found no reasonable cause for non-furnishing of information.
The Tribunal held that the Joint Director of Income Tax (Intelligence) has the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty imposed was not barred by limitation. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed penalty orders without hearing the assessees, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed penalty orders without hearing the assessees, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the cases were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) and that the penalty orders were not time-barred. The assessees' contention of reasonable cause for non-furnishing information was also rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to dispose of the matter on merits. The core issue was whether the assessees were entitled to deduction under Section 80P.