Loading ITAT cases…
87 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Merely because a deduction claim is not accepted by the Revenue does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Merely because a deduction claim is not accepted by the revenue does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding disallowance under Section 36(1)(viia) and the treatment of accrued interest on NPAs is covered by various judicial precedents, including decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal and High Courts. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Merely because a deduction claim is not accepted by the revenue does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Merely because a claim is not accepted by the revenue does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had correctly claimed the deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal agreed that the CBDT circular clarified the 'initial assessment year' and that no unabsorbed losses were carried forward by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to Provident Fund, if not deposited by the prescribed due date, cannot be allowed as a deduction, even if paid before the return filing date. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had correctly claimed the deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal agreed that the CBDT circular clarified the 'initial assessment year' and that no unabsorbed losses were carried forward by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report was a technical violation with no loss of revenue to the department. Therefore, the imposition of penalty under Section 271B was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of club expenses as the assessee failed to demonstrate they were treated as perquisites for directors. The addition on account of ESIC contribution was also confirmed, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is automatic for periods after June 1, 2015, and confirmed the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and, following principles of natural justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to provident fund deposited after the statutory due date is not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. This decision follows the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without a speaking order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to provident fund, if deposited after the statutory due date, is not allowable as a deduction. This is because such amounts are deemed income of the employer unless deposited on or before the due date.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application based on the time limit, as the assessee had applied for final registration after obtaining provisional registration. The Tribunal found that the application was within the limitation period.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is automatic for periods after June 1, 2015, and confirmed the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is automatic for periods after June 1, 2015, and confirmed the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is automatic for periods after June 1, 2015, and confirmed the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is automatic for periods after June 1, 2015, and confirmed the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is automatic for periods after June 1, 2015, and confirmed the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is automatic for periods after June 1, 2015, and confirmed the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is automatic for periods after June 1, 2015, and confirmed the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is automatic for periods after June 1, 2015, and confirmed the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is automatic for periods after June 1, 2015, and confirmed the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the condonation application and the assessee's submissions. The matter was remanded back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the order passed by the CIT(A) did not meet the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act, as it failed to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the condonation application and the assessee's submissions. The matter was remanded back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fees under Section 234E for belated TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, due to the absence of an enabling provision in Section 200A before the amendment. Therefore, the late fee charged was invalid.
The Tribunal held that no TDS was required on interest paid to members as per Section 194A(v) of the Act. It further ruled that interest income earned by a co-operative society on deposits with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds. While the Assessing Officer's estimation was not entirely justified, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed appropriate. Disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and other expenditures were not applicable as the book results were already rejected.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed relevant details before the AO, but had submitted them before the CIT(A) which were not considered. For natural justice, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, noting that the CIT(E) had not decided on merits and the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to furnish all details and appear on scheduled dates.
The Tribunal held that no TDS was required on interest paid to members as per Section 194A(v) of the Act. It further ruled that interest income earned by a co-operative society on deposits with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure, citing the assessee's substantial non-interest bearing funds. However, the disallowance of administrative expenditure was upheld as the assessee failed to substantiate that no such expenditure was incurred.
The Tribunal held that no TDS was required on interest paid to members as per Section 194A(v) of the Act. It further ruled that interest income earned by a co-operative society on deposits with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the addition is made on an estimate basis. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer's unclear initiation of penalty proceedings, issuing notices for different reasons on different dates, rendered the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the two-day delay in filing the audit report, citing human error and the assessee's charitable nature. It also noted that the Revenue had taxed the entire gross receipts without considering expenditures, which is contrary to the principle of taxing real income.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not conduct proper inquiry and the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not conduct proper inquiries and the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee faced genuine technical difficulties in uploading documents. To ensure natural justice and fair play, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to submit all documents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving opportunities. To uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another chance to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving opportunities. To uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim was bona fide, especially since it was a claim made in preceding years and the revised return was filed before the assessment order. Therefore, the penalty was unjustified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on the merits. Considering the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notice and their willingness to present their case, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, noting that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity before the CIT(A) and possessed supporting documents. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and not seek unnecessary adjournments.