Loading ITAT cases…
214 orders · Page 5 of 5
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 held that the delay of 18 days in filing the appeals for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 is condoned. The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the assessee to be genuine and bona fide, falling under 'sufficient cause', and applied a lenient approach as per the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra). The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the AO under Section 154 for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Tribunal reasoned that rectification under Section 154 is strictly for mistakes apparent from the record, which are patent and obvious, not requiring fresh investigation or deliberation. The AO's attempt to levy tax at a higher rate under Section 115BBE via Section 154 constituted a change of opinion, which is impermissible. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the additional income offered by the assessee, which was explained as interest income from money lending business, could not be considered unexplained investment under Section 69. Since the assessee explained the source of investment from undisclosed income generated from the finance business, and both income and deployment were part of the same seized material, it was not assessable as unexplained investment. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the penalty levied for AY 2016-17 in respect of capital gains, but the judgment text provided does not detail the finding on the penalty related to interest income. The appeals for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 were allowed, quashing the Section 154 orders.
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 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 condoned the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal, considering the time spent pursuing the remedy before the incorrect bench as a sufficient reason. The Tribunal also quashed the reassessment order as the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation.
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 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 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 held that the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- made on account of cheque payment under Section 69C was unsustainable due to lack of further inquiry. The addition for cash payment under Section 69C was scaled down to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- under Section 68 was upheld due to the assessee's failure to discharge the onus.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost, and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the land sold was agricultural land situated beyond the specified limits of the nearest municipality, thus not a capital asset. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that handing over possession of land solely for the limited purpose of development into flats does not constitute a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, capital gains tax cannot be levied.