Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 5 of 9
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments held with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The revisionary order passed by the Principal CIT was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT rightly exercised revisionary jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer failed to make proper inquiries and verifications. The assessee was directed to claim the benefit of beneficial provisions in consequential proceedings before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the right to collect toll qualifies as a commercial right or intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, depreciation is allowable on the capitalized cost of acquiring this right.
The Tribunal held that a mere rectification of a wrong accounting entry does not constitute repayment of a loan. Since the assessee did not receive any loan from Odhekar Jewellers, the question of repayment and violation of Section 269T did not arise.
The Tribunal held that since the underlying quantum proceedings were quashed, the penalty levied based on those proceedings had no legal basis. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not pressed/maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous and also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the returned income was accepted and there were no additions, there was no concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is pari materia to Section 50C, and the statutory tolerance margin of 10%, though amended later, should be applied retrospectively as it is curative in nature. Therefore, the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the right to collect toll qualifies as a commercial right or intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, depreciation is allowable on the capitalized cost of acquiring this right.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, citing the principle of substantial justice. Furthermore, it was held that Section 234E, read with Section 200A, was not applicable for levying fees prior to June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, citing the principle of substantial justice. Furthermore, it was held that Section 234E, read with Section 200A, was not applicable for levying fees prior to June 1, 2015.
The tribunal held that the penalty notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, this defect vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment on a 'protective basis' is not sustainable in law, especially when the issue was already subject to appeal and the Assessing Officer's belief was contingent on a future outcome. The jurisdictional requirement of having a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment was not met.
The Tribunal held that the notional value of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade cannot be brought to tax as income from house property for the year under consideration. It followed a coordinate bench decision which noted a divergence of opinion and favored the assessee in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the right to collect toll qualifies as a commercial right or intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, depreciation is allowable on the capitalized cost of acquiring this right.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of expenditure on an estimation basis, without evidence of deliberate concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, does not warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the levy of penalty was not justified.
The CIT(A) was justified in allowing the expenditure on abandoned films as revenue expenditure, following CBDT Circular No. 16/2015 and the Bombay High Court decision. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty. The assessee has a statutory obligation to obtain and verify PAN for such transactions, and there was no evidence to show compliance.
The Tribunal held that nominal members, as defined under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, are considered members for the purpose of Section 194A(3)(v). Therefore, cooperative banks are not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to such nominal members.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was fatal to the penalty proceedings as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the tribunal found this defect to be incurable and the penalty order void ab initio.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for the period prior to June 1, 2015, was bad in law as Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy such fees at that time. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that nominal members, as defined under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, are considered members for the purpose of Section 194A(3)(v). Therefore, cooperative banks are not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to such nominal members.
The Tribunal held that nominal members, as defined under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, are considered members for the purpose of Section 194A(3)(v). Therefore, cooperative banks are not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to such nominal members.
The Tribunal held that nominal members, as defined under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, are considered members for the purpose of Section 194A(3)(v). Therefore, cooperative banks are not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to such nominal members.
The assessee's authorized representative stated that the appellant company does not wish to press the grounds of appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that nominal members, as defined under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, are considered members for the purpose of Section 194A(3)(v). Therefore, cooperative banks are not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to such nominal members.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that nominal members, as defined under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, are considered members for the purpose of Section 194A(3)(v). Therefore, cooperative banks are not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to such nominal members.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for the period prior to June 1, 2015, was bad in law as Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy such fees at that time. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that nominal members are considered members under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Therefore, the exemption under Section 194A(3)(v) is applicable to interest paid on deposits received from such nominal members. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was reversed.
The Tribunal held that nominal members, as defined under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, are considered members for the purpose of Section 194A(3)(v). Therefore, cooperative banks are not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to such nominal members.
The Tribunal held that nominal members, as defined under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, are considered members for the purpose of Section 194A(3)(v). Therefore, cooperative banks are not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to such nominal members.
The Tribunal held that nominal members, as defined under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, are considered members for the purpose of Section 194A(3)(v). Therefore, cooperative banks are not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to such nominal members.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT did not specify which income was wrongly assessed in the HUF's hands or quantify any wrongful relief granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of a claim on a legal ground does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The co-operative bank's claim, though unsustainable for the period, was not based on false or incorrect details provided in the return.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of a claim on a legal ground does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The co-operative bank's claim, though unsustainable for the period, was not based on false or incorrect details provided in the return.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of a claim on a legal ground does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The co-operative bank's claim, though unsustainable for the period, was not based on false or incorrect details provided in the return.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT did not specify which income was wrongly assessed in the HUF's hands or quantify any wrongful relief granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT did not specify which income was wrongly assessed in the HUF's hands or quantify any wrongful relief granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT did not specify which income was wrongly assessed in the HUF's hands or quantify any wrongful relief granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT did not specify which income was wrongly assessed in the HUF's hands or quantify any wrongful relief granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income. It also ruled that losses from forward contracts for hedging foreign currency risk were not speculative and could be set off against other income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income. It also ruled that losses from forward contracts for hedging foreign currency risk were not speculative and could be set off against other income.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT did not specify which income was wrongly assessed in the HUF's hands or quantify any wrongful relief granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of excess cane price to the AO for fresh adjudication based on Supreme Court directions. The issue of sale of sugar at concessional rate was also restored to the AO for de-novo adjudication.