Loading ITAT cases…
39 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the issue of telescoping of cash requires detailed verification and restored it to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication. For the expenditure, Rs. 75,00,000/- for road construction was allowed as revenue expenditure, while Rs. 20,00,000/- for toilets was treated as capital expenditure.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing judicial precedents. It held that the assessee had no responsibility to deduct tax at source on payments made to doctors and hospitals on behalf of employees for medical expenses.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing judicial precedents. It held that the assessee had no responsibility to deduct tax at source on payments made to doctors and hospitals on behalf of employees for medical expenses.
The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer lacks clear satisfaction or shows ambiguity regarding the specific charge for penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the penalty proceedings become void-ab-initio. The assessee is entitled to know the exact charge to prepare their defense.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders on Section 14A disallowance and remitted the matter for reconsideration of recent Supreme Court developments. The appeal concerning book profit was dismissed as the reassessment proceedings were found invalid.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders on Section 14A disallowance and remitted the matter for reconsideration of recent Supreme Court developments. The appeal concerning book profit was dismissed as the reassessment proceedings were found invalid.
The Tribunal restored the issue under Section 40(a)(ia) to the CIT(A) for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court judgments. The relief granted for delayed EPF deposit was sustained.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders on Section 14A disallowance and remitted the matter for reconsideration of recent Supreme Court developments. The appeal concerning book profit was dismissed as the reassessment proceedings were found invalid.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal solely on the grounds of low tax effect, as it fell below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals. The Tribunal clarified that the Revenue could seek restoration if the appeal met exceptions outlined in the circular.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders on Section 14A disallowance and remitted the matter for reconsideration of recent Supreme Court developments. The appeal concerning book profit was dismissed as the reassessment proceedings were found invalid.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was primarily due to the low tax effect involved in the appeals, which fell below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was primarily due to the low tax effect involved in the appeals, which fell below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was primarily due to the low tax effect involved in the appeals, which fell below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by recent CBDT circulars. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide a reasoned order regarding the frequency of transactions and the assessee's intention. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication.
The ITAT upheld the lower authorities' decision, ruling that the payment made to the retiring partner for his share of goodwill was capital expenditure. The tribunal found that the payment was for acquiring the income-earning apparatus and goodwill, not a revenue expense.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that since the Revenue did not challenge the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings before the Tribunal, their appeal on merits alone was not sustainable. The CIT(A)'s decision was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed as infructuous.