Loading ITAT cases…
214 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative, having retrospective effect. Therefore, if the recipient has offered the income to tax, the expenditure cannot be disallowed. However, the issue of whether the recipient actually paid the tax requires further verification.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the notices from the CIT(A) were sent to an incorrect email address, not the one provided by the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was not properly notified of the appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. It directed the AO to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of cash payment of rent was wrongly invoked under Section 69A as it was an expenditure recorded in the books. For conveyance and LTA, the matter was remanded for fresh verification of evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. For the assessee's appeals, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for verification of facts regarding interest and late fee calculations.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation for the cash receipts of Rs. 18,52,434/- on 08.11.2016, considering the nature of its business and the general unawareness of demonetization notifications on the first day. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds challenging the validity of the assessment order on legal grounds, particularly concerning limitation. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal directed the AO to accept gifts from parents as a source for cash deposits and allowed a portion of the cash deposits as explained by past savings and withdrawals.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds challenging the validity of the assessment order on legal grounds, particularly concerning limitation. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal directed the AO to accept gifts from parents as a source for cash deposits and allowed a portion of the cash deposits as explained by past savings and withdrawals.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds challenging the validity of the assessment order on legal grounds, particularly concerning limitation. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal directed the AO to accept gifts from parents as a source for cash deposits and allowed a portion of the cash deposits as explained by past savings and withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her onus by showing sufficient withdrawals from her bank account and providing details of loan recoveries. The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not conducted further inquiries to disprove the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The Tribunal further held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the period prescribed under the unamended provisions of Section 149 of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the notices from the CIT(A) were sent to an incorrect email address, not the one provided by the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was not properly notified of the appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination. The assessee was given an opportunity to produce documentary evidence to substantiate the expenses and the brought forward losses.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable without an effective opportunity for cross-examination, as the third-party statement was the sole basis for the addition. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after ensuring cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable without an effective opportunity for cross-examination, as the third-party statement was the sole basis for the addition. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after ensuring cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable without an effective opportunity for cross-examination, as the third-party statement was the sole basis for the addition. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after ensuring cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that for a trust created by a Will where beneficiaries' shares are unknown, tax should be charged at the rates applicable to an AOP as per Section 164(1) read with its first proviso, not Section 167B. Specific provisions prevail over general ones.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. Consequently, any additions made by taxing this compensation were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. Consequently, any additions made by taxing this compensation were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding merit in the assessee's claim that notices were sent to the wrong email. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. Consequently, any additions made by taxing this compensation were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. It directed the AO to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of technical knowledge and the nature of his income. The CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for registration, the CIT(E) should consider the objects of the trust and proposed activities, not just completed activities, especially for a newly formed trust. The CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground of no activities being carried out.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s orders were not reasoned and did not consider the assessee's submissions. Therefore, both orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the delay based on the assessee's explanation and a liberal approach as per Supreme Court precedent. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds challenging the validity of the assessment order on legal grounds, particularly concerning limitation. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal directed the AO to accept gifts from parents as a source for cash deposits and allowed a portion of the cash deposits as explained by past savings and withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable without an effective opportunity for cross-examination, as the third-party statement was the sole basis for the addition. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after ensuring cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. It directed the AO to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. It directed the AO to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. It directed the AO to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals summarily without addressing the specific grounds of appeal. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a reasoned decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of technical knowledge and the nature of his income. The CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of technical knowledge and the nature of his income. The CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of technical knowledge and the nature of his income. The CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. It directed the AO to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.