Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant exemption under Section 11, following previous decisions in the assessee's own cases. The issue of Section 10(23C) exemption was considered academic. The Tribunal also directed the AO to recompute income considering specific grounds and allowed TDS credit for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the AO had not demonstrated any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) after verification of information.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, considering the reasons provided by the assessee (director's ill health and advisor's advice) and the liberal approach mandated by Supreme Court judgments. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the specified monetary limits. The appeal did not fall under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order, stating that a subsequent Supreme Court decision on the same issue, which clarifies the law, can be a basis for rectification under Section 254(2). The Tribunal then dismissed the assessee's appeal following the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the annual value of the property should be the higher of the municipal valuation or actual rent received, and notional interest on loans from a holding company cannot be added. It also held that service charges are to be taxed as business income.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to Provident Fund, even if made before the return filing due date, is not allowable as a deduction. This decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant period. Regarding the carry forward of losses, the Assessing Officer was directed to decide the pending application.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant period. Regarding the carry forward of losses, the Assessing Officer was directed to decide the pending application.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant period. Regarding the carry forward of losses, the Assessing Officer was directed to decide the pending application.
The Tribunal confirmed the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11, following previous coordinate bench decisions. The issue of exemption under Section 10(23C) was deemed academic. The Tribunal also directed the AO to recompute income considering specific grounds and allowed TDS credit for statistical purposes.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the impugned issue under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and a full and final settlement was issued. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1000/- for non-cooperation.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation should be adopted as it was less than the stamp duty valuation, and Section 50C(3) was applicable. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction under Section 54F, stating that it's not mandatory to use the sale proceeds of the old property for the new investment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all supporting details within 90 days, and the CIT(A) was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified. Therefore, the impugned additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the capital gains should be taxed in the hands of the person who is legally liable, even if the income was declared by another person. The DRP's decision to sustain the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1000/- to the Income Tax Department.
The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC is not allowable as a deduction, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was upheld.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal entirely. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that some grounds were decided in favor of the assessee and others against it.
The Tribunal held that the due date for PF and ESI contributions is within 15 days from the close of the calendar month. However, it restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's claim that some contributions were made before the due date, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Limited.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal entirely. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that some grounds were decided in favor of the assessee and others against it.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in providing the requested details due to system incompatibility and the age of the data. Since the assessee ultimately provided all relevant details, the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable when additions are made purely on estimation, following various High Court and Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and restored the proceedings back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to furnish income computation with supporting documents for a de novo assessment.