Loading ITAT cases…
221 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that a cooperative bank, despite carrying on banking business, retains its character as a cooperative society for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d). Section 80P(4) does not deny deduction to a society investing in a cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue had no basis for the addition as Shri Sanjay Garg himself denied any transaction with the assessee. The Tribunal found that the entire case of the Revenue rested on surmises and conjectures without cogent evidence, especially since Shri Sanjay Garg's denial remained uncontroverted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s reasons for denial were not substantiated. The Tribunal held that the evidence provided by the assessee, including photographs, attendance sheets, rent receipts, and donor details, was sufficient to establish the genuineness of its activities.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding accumulated savings and prior withdrawals was not entirely unreasonable and had not been controverted by the Revenue. Therefore, the complete rejection of the assessee's explanation was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. remains the law of the land, even though a Special Leave Petition on a similar issue was admitted in the case of Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited. Therefore, the disallowance of delayed payments was correctly made.
The Tribunal held that the payments for packaging materials were not work contracts but contracts for sale. Therefore, TDS under Section 194C was not applicable, and the demand for TDS and interest was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. remains the law of the land, even though a Special Leave Petition on a similar issue was admitted in the case of Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited. Therefore, the disallowance of delayed payments was correctly made.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(E) to allow the appellant a fresh opportunity to present their case and necessary documents, including the recently obtained registration under the RPT Act, 1959.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the tax consultant's mistake. It held that the assessee, acting solely as a Power of Attorney holder for his mother who was the absolute owner, was not liable for the capital gains as he had no dominion over the sale proceeds.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was not exempt from TDS after the specific notification date, the first proviso to Section 201(1) could apply if HUDCO had already accounted for the interest income and paid tax. The appeal was allowed subject to verification of a revised Form 26A.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without considering its merits and without providing the appellant with a proper opportunity of being heard. The order was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. It granted one more opportunity to the appellant trust to complete its documentation and present its case.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside and remanded back to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits. The assessee was directed to furnish necessary documents and appear before the CIT(E) on all dates.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's illiteracy and potential issues with email communication. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter back for a fresh decision after issuing physical notices to the assessee, providing one last opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the appellant was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard as it was not proven that the notice was served. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to pass a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a bonafide belief that the 80G approval was consequential to 12AB registration. Since 12AB registration was subsequently granted, the Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It reasoned that if the underlying additions are deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty proceedings based on those additions are not sustainable. Additionally, the penalty was levied against a deceased person.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 187 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause, citing the assessee's illiteracy and the death of her tax consultant. The Tribunal further remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not illegal or perverse, and that interest expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for acquiring a capital asset is includible in the cost of acquisition. Additionally, the Tribunal noted the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on a statement made by the assessee's authorized representative. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
The Tribunal noted that the approval under Section 80G had been granted, rendering the appeal infructuous. Therefore, the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal was accepted.