Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were bad in law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. It held that the ex-parte orders were passed without providing an effective opportunity of hearing due to lack of proof of notice service.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient cause, following the liberal approach adopted by the Supreme Court for condonation of delay. The technicality of limitation should not defeat substantial justice.
The Tribunal noted that the orders passed by the lower authorities were largely ex parte. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, with an assurance of adequate opportunity and compliance.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B was not sustainable because the quantum assessment was set aside, meaning there was no valid assessment order to form the basis for penalty proceedings. Additionally, the assessee demonstrated a 'reasonable cause' for the delay.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the cash deposits represented business turnover from liquor sales, which were duly recorded in the books and traceable to bank deposits. The Tribunal agreed that the source of purchases was also explained by these sales proceeds.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea of a communication gap and the need for a fresh assessment. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10AB was a procedural issue and not fatal to the application. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matters to the CIT(Exemptions) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10AB was a procedural issue and not fatal to the applications. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matters to the CIT(Exemptions) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10AB was a procedural issue and not fatal to the applications. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matters to the CIT(Exemptions) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10AB was a procedural issue and not fatal to the applications. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matters to the CIT(Exemptions) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10AB was a procedural issue and not fatal to the applications. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matters to the CIT(Exemptions) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10AB was a procedural issue and not fatal to the applications. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matters to the CIT(Exemptions) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the orders of the lower authorities were ex-parte. While the assessee showed little enthusiasm in pursuing the matter below, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order in the interest of substantial justice.
The Tribunal, following a previous decision for AY 2013-14 on identical issues, held that the arbitral award receipts and interest on delayed payments were not taxable in India. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of Permanent Establishment (PE) was raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal, following a previous decision for AY 2013-14 on identical issues, held that the arbitral award receipts and interest on delayed payments were not taxable in India. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of Permanent Establishment (PE) was raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal found the orders of the lower authorities cryptic and the evidence unclear. Due to the lack of clarity and the need for proper examination of documents and transactions, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 270A were invalid because the AO did not specify the exact limb of Section 270A(9) under which the penalty was levied. This omission renders the penalty manifestly illegal.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal followed its own prior order and the jurisdictional High Court's decision, holding that interest on income tax refund is business income and taxable at the rate applicable to business profits, not the DTAA rate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the ad hoc disallowances. The AO had failed to point out any specific defects or provide a rationale for the disallowances, and the assessee's financial statements were accepted.