Loading ITAT cases…
37 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the property belonged to the HUF based on the partition deed and the fact that it was brought into a common pool of properties. The Tribunal noted that protective assessments in the hands of individual co-parceners had become final, preventing double taxation.
The Tribunal found that the estimated income at 20% of gross turnover appeared high, especially for the first year of commercial production. Therefore, the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on deposits of corpus funds and sinking funds, contributed by members for their own welfare and maintenance, retains the character of the corpus and thus the principle of mutuality applies. Consequently, the interest income is not taxable.
The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court decision, allowed the assessee to e-file its appeal within two weeks. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits without reference to the limitation period, as the original manual filing was within time.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee did not appear for hearings. No merits were discussed due to the absence of the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not examined the donors during assessment or remand proceedings. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for examination of the donors regarding their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the gifts.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in the Revenue's appeal, finding the reasons provided by the department to be satisfactory. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without proper procedure and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the provisions to include late fee under Section 234E in intimations under Section 200A were effective only from June 1, 2015. Since the TDS return was filed prior to this date, the levy was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on fixed deposits, which was kept with the bank to obtain a bank guarantee for HUDA, should be treated as a capital receipt. This receipt could be used to reduce the cost of construction or offset administrative costs.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition in the assessee's hands, finding that the sale was by the developer and not the assessee. However, the CIT(A) also directed the AO to investigate capital gains from an earlier development agreement and subsequent sale of flats, which the Tribunal found to be beyond the scope of the appeal and time-barred.
The Tribunal found that the assessee habitually makes cash deposits and withdrawals, and considering her declared vocational income, the cash deposit of Rs. 2,70,000/- could be accepted as out of vocational income. Therefore, the AO was directed to treat the deposit as income from other sources, not under Section 69.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees could not be levied under Section 200A for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A to include such levies was prospective. Fees levied for returns filed after this date were upheld.
The Tribunal held that late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied in intimations under Section 200A for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015. Fees levied for returns filed after this date were upheld.
The Tribunal held that late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A enabling such levy was prospective. Fees levied for returns filed after this date were upheld.
The Tribunal held that late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied in intimations under Section 200A for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015. Fees levied for returns filed after this date were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E in intimations under Section 200A was permissible only from June 1, 2015. For returns filed prior to this date, such levy was without authority of law.
The Tribunal held that late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A to include such levies was prospective. Fees levied for returns filed after this date were upheld.
The Tribunal held that late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A enabling such levy was prospective. Fees levied for returns filed after this date were upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not commenced its business and had not offered any income or claimed any expenditure in its return, the AO could not make any disallowance in the capital work-in-progress. Adjustments by the AO were deemed uncalled for in this assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided further opportunity to the assessee to argue the case on merits. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit details.
The Tribunal held that the cash payment for land purchase was made on March 2, 2009, not March 7, 2009, as claimed by the assessee. Since March 2, 2009, was a Monday and not a public holiday, the exceptions under Rule 6DD were not applicable, thus violating Section 40A(3).
The Tribunal held that statutory payments like property tax, rent, and depreciation should be allowed in full as they are verifiable and compulsory. However, a 15% disallowance was upheld for salaries and other expenses where inflation is possible.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was valid as it was served within the prescribed time limit. However, additions related to compensation received from GHMC and fixed deposit were deleted due to prior offer of tax and matching dates with SB account deposits.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that TDS is only required on service charges paid to the agent and expenses not properly supported, not on reimbursements to third parties. The disallowance was restricted to expenses incurred by the agent on its own behalf and service charges paid to the agent.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay. The CIT(A) was instructed to decide the appeal on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the lender's income tax return disclosed sources for the loan amount. It noted that the revenue authorities had not properly examined the lender or the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of limitation without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for re-admission of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees could not be levied through intimations under Section 200A for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015. The levy was therefore without authority of law for the period in question.
The Tribunal held that late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A enabling such levy was prospective. Fees levied for returns filed after this date were upheld.
The Tribunal held that late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A enabling such levy was prospective. Fees levied for returns filed after this date were upheld.
The Tribunal held that late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A enabling such levy was prospective. Fees levied for returns filed after this date were upheld.
The Tribunal held that late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A enabling such levy was prospective. Fees levied for returns filed after this date were upheld.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit details.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees could not be levied through intimations under Section 200A for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015. The levy was therefore without authority of law for the period in question.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees could not be levied through intimations under Section 200A for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015. The levy was therefore without authority of law for the period in question.