Loading ITAT cases…
376 orders · Page 1 of 8
The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as the mechanism for computation was introduced on that date. Since the levies in question were for periods prior to this date, they were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that additions based on reverse calculation and peak rate presumption, without specific incriminating material, are not sustainable. However, the issue of double taxation on certain plot sales required further factual verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which provided the mechanism for computing and intimating fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The ITAT held that the penalty notice was bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to strike off the appropriate words indicating concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the AO's penalty order.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which provided the mechanism for computing and intimating fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the mechanism for its computation under Section 200A, was made effective prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that additions based on reverse calculation and peak rate presumption, without specific incriminating material, are not sustainable. However, the issue of double taxation on certain plot sales required further factual verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employees' contributions to PF and ESIC were deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance was warranted, following High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employees' contributions to PF and ESIC were deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance was warranted, following High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the registration granted under Section 12A of the Act was not applicable to the assessment year 2008-09 as it was effective only from AY 2009-10. Consequently, the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 11 for the year in question.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which provided the mechanism for computing and intimating fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and remanded the matter back for re-adjudication. The assessee is to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the NFAC.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employees' contributions to PF and ESIC were deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance was warranted, following High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employees' contributions to PF and ESIC were deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance was warranted, following High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as the mechanism for computation was introduced on that date. Since the levies in question were for periods prior to this date, they were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vitiated because it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as the mechanism for computation was introduced on that date. Since the levies in question were for periods prior to this date, they were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employees' contributions to PF and ESIC were deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which provided the mechanism for computing and intimating fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they were not pressing the grounds raised. The department did not oppose the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not strike off the inapplicable words, making it unclear whether the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the mechanism for its computation under Section 200A, was made effective prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which provided the mechanism for computing and intimating fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which provided the mechanism for computing and intimating fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which provided the mechanism for computing and intimating fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which provided the mechanism for computing and intimating fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which provided the mechanism for computing and intimating fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which provided the mechanism for computing and intimating fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which provided the mechanism for computing and intimating fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which provided the mechanism for computing and intimating fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal found force in the Revenue's arguments that the assessees failed to prove the genuineness of their LTCG claims. Relying on a co-ordinate bench decision and a Calcutta High Court judgment, the Tribunal held that such gains were unexplained and lacked genuineness.
The Tribunal found force in the Revenue's arguments that the assessees failed to prove the genuineness of their LTCG claims. Relying on a co-ordinate bench decision and a Calcutta High Court judgment, the Tribunal held that such gains were unexplained and lacked genuineness.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI paid after the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is not warranted. This is based on judicial precedents from the Bombay and Himachal Pradesh High Courts.
The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E, as provided by the amendment to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E, as provided by the amendment to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI paid after the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is not warranted. This is based on judicial precedents from the Bombay and Himachal Pradesh High Courts.
The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E, as provided by the amendment to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E, as provided by the amendment to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E, as provided by the amendment to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation claim back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The assessee was given three effective opportunities to prove the necessary details of the impugned WDV as per law.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the royalty and homologation expenses were revenue in nature, consistent with previous assessment years. The Tribunal also directed the Transfer Pricing Officer to finalize computations based on preceding years' factual verification.
The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E, as provided by the amendment to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI paid after the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is not warranted. This is based on judicial precedents from the Bombay and Himachal Pradesh High Courts.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit. It affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, which were based on a previous decision of the Tribunal itself in the assessee's case for AY 2009-10 (ITA No. 1640/PUN/2014). In that prior decision, the Tribunal had determined that the receipts were advance receipts, and the business profits were taxable in the year the project was completed and tenements/flats were handed over to prospective buyers, which was AY 2011-12. The Tribunal found that the amount received in the year under appeal (AY 2008-09) was an advance that did not culminate in the completion of the transaction. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted. The Tribunal adopted judicial consistency and dismissed the Revenue's sole substantive grievance.
The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E, as provided by the amendment to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case and the decision of the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover its investments.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI paid after the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is not warranted. This is based on judicial precedents from the Bombay and Himachal Pradesh High Courts.
The Tribunal held that the delay was attributable to Covid-19 and directed the NFAC to admit the appeals. The appeals were to be decided on merits after complying with natural justice.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI paid after the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is not warranted. This is based on judicial precedents from the Bombay and Himachal Pradesh High Courts.