Loading ITAT cases…
21 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty levied was illegal and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty levied was illegal and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty levied was illegal and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty levied was illegal and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty levied was illegal and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that FGIET is eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Assessing Officer allotted a PAN to FGIET using the registration certificate of RPA as proof of existence, thereby acknowledging them as one and the same entity. The status of FGIET was also marked as 'Association of Persons' in the PAN application. Furthermore, RPA, the parent society, had obtained 12A registration on November 1, 2010, and had no other institution apart from FGIET. RPA had not claimed any exemption separately and did not file its own income tax return until it obtained a separate PAN from assessment year 2015-16. The Tribunal also noted the consistency in granting exemption to FGIET from assessment year 2010-11 onwards, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow exemption to the assessee under Section 11. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the registration. The lease deed clearly stipulated the trust's entitlement to the fair market value of constructions upon termination, negating the CIT's concern about property transfer to a member. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including bank statements and books of account, which the CIT failed to consider.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the registration. The lease deed clearly stipulated the trust's entitlement to the fair market value of constructions upon termination, negating the CIT's concern about property transfer to a member. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including bank statements and books of account, which the CIT failed to consider.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty levied was illegal and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that travelling expenses for spouses could be part of director remuneration and that disallowances under Section 14A require proof of expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. The Tribunal found that the nexus between expenditure and exempt income was not established and that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds.
The Tribunal noted that travelling expenses for spouses could be part of director remuneration and that disallowances under Section 14A require proof of expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. The Tribunal found that the nexus between expenditure and exempt income was not established and that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds.
The Tribunal clarified that the respondent in the appeal is 'Pr. CIT (Central) Lucknow' and not 'CIT (Exemptions)'. This correction does not alter the substance of the original order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s observation directing the Assessing Officer to take remedial measures was not justified, especially after allowing relief to the assessee. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal expunged this observation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s observation directing the Assessing Officer to take remedial measures was not justified, especially after allowing relief to the assessee. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal expunged this observation.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they were not willing to contest it further. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and failing to decide on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical, as it was impossible for the approving authority to have applied their mind to 38 draft assessment orders on a single day. This vitiated the assessment proceedings.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 in the name of a deceased person is invalid and cannot empower the Assessing Officer to pass a valid assessment order. Consequently, the assessment proceedings based on such a notice are liable to be quashed.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection.