Loading ITAT cases…
126 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal noted that in similar past cases, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted when the income was offered voluntarily to buy peace and no addition was made in assessment. Following this precedent, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that neither the assessee nor the AO/CIT(A) strictly followed the prescribed method for determining the fair market value of unquoted equity shares under Rule 11UA. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the unsold flats, being stock-in-trade and occupied for business purposes, are excluded from deemed rent under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, no addition on account of deemed rent can be made.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the TPO and DRP for rejecting the assessee's segmental profitability were not tenable. The Tribunal found that the assessee's segmental profitability, and even the consolidated service segment margin, was better than the comparable companies' margins.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and taken a plausible view in allowing the exemption. The Pr.CIT's order was considered unjustified as the assessment order was not erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had inadvertently selected the wrong clause for filing the application due to a bonafide mistake. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration, with a direction to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that since the additions which formed the basis for the penalty had been vacated by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, the penalty could not survive on a standalone basis. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income derived from its investments held with a cooperative bank. The Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's adjournment petition. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a disallowance of 2% of the exempt income is reasonable for earning such income, especially prior to the insertion of Rule 8D. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to re-calculate the disallowance at 2%.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to explain the source of the credits in their bank account. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. Additionally, it allowed the deduction of education cess and higher education cess.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to consultant's wrong advice. However, as no reasonable cause for non-payment of self-assessment tax was pleaded, the Tribunal confirmed the penalty orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to consultant's wrong advice. However, as no reasonable cause for non-payment of self-assessment tax was pleaded, the Tribunal confirmed the penalty orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to consultant's wrong advice. However, as no reasonable cause for non-payment of self-assessment tax was pleaded before the Tribunal, the orders of the lower authorities were confirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to consultant's wrong advice. However, as no reasonable cause for non-payment of self-assessment tax was pleaded, the Tribunal confirmed the penalty orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to consultant's wrong advice. However, as no reasonable cause for non-payment of self-assessment tax was pleaded, the Tribunal confirmed the penalty orders.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to consultant's wrong advice. However, as no reasonable cause for non-payment of self-assessment tax was pleaded, the Tribunal confirmed the penalty orders.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had prayed for the disposal of the appeal as infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of as infructuous.