Loading ITAT cases…
63 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on grounds of natural justice, noting that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on grounds of natural justice, noting that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on grounds of natural justice, noting that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on grounds of natural justice, noting that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on grounds of natural justice, noting that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on grounds of natural justice, noting that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on grounds of natural justice, noting that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the disallowed amount was a reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of the cement company, not an expense affecting the assessee's profit and loss. Therefore, no disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal held that since the construction was undertaken by the company in the normal course of its real estate business, it falls within the exception clause of Section 2(22)(e). Therefore, the Pr. CIT's action under Section 263 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on grounds of natural justice, noting that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The ITAT held that the Supreme Court had set aside the Kerala High Court judgment relied upon by the lower authorities. The Supreme Court ruled that co-operative banks engaged in banking business are entitled to Section 80P deduction, provided loans are not given to non-members.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on grounds of natural justice, noting that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the construction was undertaken by the company in the normal course of its real estate business, it falls within the exception clause of Section 2(22)(e). Therefore, the Pr. CIT's action under Section 263 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the construction was undertaken by the company in the normal course of its real estate business, it falls within the exception clause of Section 2(22)(e). Therefore, the Pr. CIT's action under Section 263 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the construction was undertaken by the company in the normal course of its real estate business, it falls within the exception clause of Section 2(22)(e). Therefore, the Pr. CIT's action under Section 263 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the issue of disallowance of employee PF and ESI contributions was debatable, with divergent views from the jurisdictional High Court, it could not be a subject matter for revision under Section 263.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on grounds of natural justice, noting that similar delays were condoned in connected cases. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The ITAT held that the Supreme Court had set aside the Kerala High Court judgment relied upon by the lower authorities. The Supreme Court ruled that co-operative banks engaged in banking business are entitled to Section 80P deduction, provided loans are not given to non-members.
The Tribunal held that since the issue was debatable, it could not be subject to adjustment under Section 143(1). Furthermore, on merits, the issue was liable to be held in favour of the assessee based on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that despite the enduring nature of the construction, the expenditure should be treated as revenue expenditure because it resulted in an enduring benefit to the revenue field, not the capital field. The assessee was not able to retrieve any assets on lease expiry.
The Tribunal held that since the issue was debatable, it could not be subject to adjustment under Section 143(1). Furthermore, on merits, the issue was liable to be held in favour of the assessee based on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E is a mandatory levy for delayed filing of TDS returns, and there is no provision for considering reasonable cause like old age or health ailments. Therefore, the levy was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E is a mandatory levy for delayed filing of TDS returns, and there is no provision for considering reasonable cause like old age or health ailments. Therefore, the levy was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E is a mandatory levy for delayed filing of TDS returns, and there is no provision for considering reasonable cause like old age or health ailments. Therefore, the levy was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E is a mandatory levy for delayed filing of TDS returns, and there is no provision for considering reasonable cause like old age or health ailments. Therefore, the levy was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E is a mandatory levy for delayed filing of TDS returns and that there is no provision for condoning such delay based on reasonable cause like old age or health ailments.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal's tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was allowed.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the reasons provided by the assessee, which included internal disputes and loss of access to premises. The appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the medical procedure constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Additionally, the audit report was available during assessment proceedings, and the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271B. The assessee, being a cooperative bank, is obligated to file its audit report within the stipulated time, and failure to do so warrants the penalty.
The Tribunal found that there was no indication of notice of hearing being issued by the CIT(A), thus violating the principles of natural justice. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the appeals were restored for readjudication.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for the delay, citing the departure of the accountant and the need to make alternate arrangements. Considering this was the first year of exceeding the turnover threshold and the audit report was available during assessment, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's submission that the matter had become infructuous.
The Tribunal found that there was no indication of notice of hearing being issued by the CIT(A), thus violating the principles of natural justice. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the appeals were restored for readjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271B. The assessee, being a cooperative bank, is obligated to file its audit report within the stipulated time, and failure to do so warrants the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision order was based on a High Court judgment that was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the foundation of the revision order no longer existed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The tribunal held that the Pr. CIT impermissibly widened the scope of Section 263 by issuing directions not included in the original show cause notice. Since no additions were made in the consequential order on the issues originally raised by the Pr. CIT, there was no error prejudicial to the revenue in the original assessment. Therefore, the Section 263 order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI paid beyond statutory due dates but before the income tax return filing due date cannot be made in an intimation under Section 143(1)(a). The confirmation of this disallowance by the CIT(A) was reversed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.