Loading ITAT cases…
240 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issues on merit after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and not all grounds of appeal were decided on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1453 days, subject to a deposit of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant 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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption.
The Tribunal noted that the addition was made without hearing the assessee and without proper inquiry. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessment was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to health reasons. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the issue of limitation and several other grounds were not adequately addressed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits and the issue of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption.
The Tribunal held that income tax cannot be levied on hypothetical income. Since the profit on unsold flats was offered to tax in subsequent years when they were sold, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 is attracted only for unexplained cash credits, not for cashless barter transactions. Since the transactions were on a barter basis without any cash involvement, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation, as the time limit for issuing such a notice had expired. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this notice was also invalid.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation, as the time limit for issuing such a notice had expired. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this notice was also invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have deleted the disallowances as the issues were covered by settled legal principles and judicial precedents. Restoring the issues to the AO would lead to multiplication of proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the issue required factual examination to determine if the income adjustment was indeed a double counting. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) was instructed to strictly comply with Rule 46A for admitting or rejecting additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for unexplained loans, stating that the loans were liable to be added under Section 68. The Tribunal also deleted the commission addition, finding no evidence of the assessee receiving commission for accommodation entries.
The Tribunal found that the issue required factual examination to determine if the income adjustment was indeed a double counting. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that since the basis for the disallowance no longer existed due to the assessee not being in default for TDS, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside. The issue was remanded to the AO to delete the addition if the assessee was not held in default.
The ITAT, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that since the basis for the disallowance no longer existed due to the assessee not being in default for TDS, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside. The issue was remanded to the AO to delete the addition if the assessee was not held in default.