Loading ITAT cases…
58 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that Section 269SS deals with loans and deposits, not sale consideration of immovable property. Therefore, the authorities below wrongly invoked Section 269SS and consequently Section 271D for imposing the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee on surplus funds invested with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court's decision in The Totgars' Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order despite giving several opportunities to the assessee. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order despite giving several opportunities to the assessee. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's circumstances, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It directed the CIT(A) to recalculate the profit at 2% on the disputed cash transaction amount.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite the assessee's claims. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order despite giving several opportunities to the assessee. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite the assessee's claims. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.