Loading ITAT cases…
78 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the NFAC's decision, finding no infirmity in the additions made. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the cash deposits or to substantiate claims of exceptions under Rule 6DD for cash payments.
The Tribunal restored the issue of the remaining addition of Rs. 27,94,122/- back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present its case and for the AO to consider the submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a return in response to a notice under Section 148 is fatal to the reassessment proceedings. Such an assessment order is considered invalid and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence furnished by the assessee, finding that it required verification at the CIT(A)'s level. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on a mistaken factual premise, as the assessee had indeed filed a return of income. Following the Delhi High Court's judgment in Deepak Wadhwa, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment notice and order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee credit cooperative society is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for income from providing credit facilities to its members and under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from investments with other cooperative banks. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for quantification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to sufficient cause. It held that interest income from cooperative banks and commission income for bill collection are eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The penalty under Section 270A was set aside as it was based on the quantum addition.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 151(2) was mechanical and not in accordance with the law, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessees without specific satisfaction recorded for each case. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by BSNL employees under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is a capital receipt exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to sufficient cause. It held that interest income from cooperative banks and commission income for bill collection are eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The penalty under Section 270A was set aside as it was based on the quantum addition.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by BSNL employees under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is a capital receipt exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by BSNL employees under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is a capital receipt exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by BSNL employees under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is a capital receipt exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's lack of expertise with the IT portal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from its investments with banks is attributable to its banking business and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Alternatively, it is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d) if earned from other cooperative banks.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative credit society from its investments with scheduled and commercial banks is attributable to its banking business and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(c) for other income.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee was directed to provide evidence for its claim of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and the deficit in its books.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee was directed to provide evidence for its claim of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and the deficit in its books.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in rejecting the CUP method and applying TNMM. It found that the comparable company selected under TNMM was functionally dissimilar and lacked segmental data. The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 3,19,380/-. This was because the same amount was already taxed in the hands of a partner, avoiding double taxation.
The Tribunal held that while CSR expenses are mandated by the Companies Act and not allowable as business expenditure, Section 80G does not restrict deductions for donations made to eligible funds, except for Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund. Therefore, donations forming part of CSR expenses, other than to these two funds, are eligible for 80G deduction if they meet the voluntariness criterion.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C is not applicable to unaccounted purchases not appearing in the books. Following the rule of consistency and a prior year's assessment, it was decided that only the profit element on unaccounted sales should be taxed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the deletion of Rs. 2,97,626/- from the addition made on account of partner remuneration. This was to avoid double taxation as the same amount was taxed in the hands of one of the partners.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment was bad in law and quashed the assessment order. The reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked a live link to the income escaping assessment.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment was bad in law and quashed the assessment order. The reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked a live link to the income escaping assessment.