Loading ITAT cases…
116 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It noted that the time limit for the AO to pass a consequential assessment order under section 153(3) had expired, rendering the appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per the relevant CBDT circulars. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to apply for revival if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per the relevant CBDT circulars. However, it granted the Revenue liberty to apply for revival if the case falls under any exceptions in the future.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) gave opportunities but the assessee did not avail them. Considering the welfare nature of tax legislation and the need to protect assessee interests, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It held that the AO's order was not time-barred under the amended Section 201(3). However, it directed the AO to re-examine the default under Section 201(1) considering Explanation to Section 191 and the conditions for exemption under Section 197A, and to determine interest liability under Section 201(1A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It directed fresh orders to be passed by the AO, excluding cases where the recipient had included the interest in their total income and no tax was deductible.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It directed fresh orders to be passed by the AO, excluding cases where the recipient had included the interest in their total income and no tax was deductible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the AIRs due to their ignorance of the obligation. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271FA was deleted as per the provisions of Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the AIRs due to their ignorance of the obligation. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271FA was deleted as per the provisions of Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the AIRs due to their ignorance of the obligation. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271FA was deleted as per the provisions of Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the AIRs due to their ignorance of the obligation. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271FA was deleted as per the provisions of Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the AIRs due to their ignorance of the obligation. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271FA was deleted as per the provisions of Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the AIRs due to their ignorance of the obligation. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271FA was deleted as per the provisions of Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the AIRs due to their ignorance of the obligation. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271FA was deleted as per the provisions of Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the AIRs due to their ignorance of the obligation. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271FA was deleted as per the provisions of Section 273B.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to genuine difficulties. It further held that the orders passed by the AO under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were time-barred as they were passed beyond the prescribed time limits under Section 201(3).
The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Act, which allows for the levy of late fees, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults committed after this date. For periods prior to June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which allows for the levy of late fees, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which allows for the levy of late fees, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Act, which allows for the levy of late fees, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults committed after this date. For periods prior to June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Act, which allows for the levy of late fees, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults committed after this date. For periods prior to June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Act, which allows for the levy of late fees, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults committed after this date. For periods prior to June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was not permissible.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to genuine difficulties. It further held that the orders passed by the AO under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were time-barred as they were passed beyond the prescribed time limits under Section 201(3).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to genuine difficulties. It further held that the orders passed by the AO under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were time-barred as they were passed beyond the prescribed time limits under Section 201(3).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to genuine difficulties. It further held that the orders passed by the AO under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were time-barred as they were passed beyond the prescribed time limits under Section 201(3).
The Tribunal, following its own precedent in the assessee's own case, directed the AO to restrict the disallowance of commission payment to 5% uniformly for the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent in the assessee's own case, directed the AO to restrict the disallowance of commission payment to 5% uniformly for the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly added only the gross profit on unsubstantiated purchases, not the full purchase amount. The Principal CIT's view was contrary to High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s disallowance on a proportionate basis was unsustainable. Following its own prior decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the commission payment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to genuine difficulties. It further held that the orders passed by the AO under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were time-barred as they were passed beyond the prescribed time limits under Section 201(3).
The Tribunal, following its own precedent in the assessee's own case, directed the AO to restrict the disallowance of commission payment to 5% uniformly for the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which allows for the levy of late fees, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that brought forward business loss cannot be set off against capital gains. Section 72 of the Income Tax Act allows set-off of business loss only against profits and gains of any business or profession, not against capital gains.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of interest expenses. The assessee failed to substantiate the reasonableness and business expediency of the higher interest paid on unsecured loans.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of interest expenses. The assessee failed to substantiate the reasonableness and business expediency of the higher interest paid on unsecured loans.