Loading ITAT cases…
376 orders · Page 3 of 8
The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying late fees under Section 234E, as provided by amendments 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 late fees under Section 234E, as provided by amendments 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 late fees under Section 234E, as provided by amendments to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The tribunal rejected the adjournment request as no sufficient cause was shown. The condonation petition for delay was also rejected as the reason cited was not valid and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, they are deductible. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal held that the power to levy late fees under Section 234E was available for the period after June 1, 2015. Since the intimation was issued post this date, the levy of late fees was justified.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, they are deductible. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Income-tax Act, along with the mechanism for computing late fees, was made effective only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Income-tax Act, along with the mechanism for computing late fees, was made effective only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying late fees under Section 234E, as provided by amendments 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 making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should be allowed at 15% of gross receipts, as per settled law. However, the accumulated amount cannot exceed the unspent amount.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Income-tax Act, along with the mechanism for computing late fees, was made effective only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed if the income in question is already included in the return of income. The disclosure during survey, when reflected in the return, does not constitute concealment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of milk procurement price difference, as it was decided in favour of the assessee by the Bombay High Court. Similarly, the disallowance of additional depreciation was also deleted, following a co-ordinate bench's decision.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable in the absence of exempt income. It also directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the disallowance by considering only investments yielding exempt income for the average calculation.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable in the absence of exempt income. It also directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the disallowance by considering only investments yielding exempt income for the average calculation.
The Tribunal held that accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should be allowed at 15% of gross receipts, as per settled law. However, the accumulated amount cannot exceed the unspent amount.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Income-tax Act, along with the mechanism for computing late fees, was made effective only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption only for one flat, upholding the decision of the CIT(A). This is based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that two separate flats cannot be considered as one unit for exemption purposes.
The Tribunal held that referral fees paid to doctors and nursing homes are prohibited by law and cannot be allowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT.
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying late fees under Section 234E, as provided by amendments 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 late fees under Section 234E, as provided by amendments 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 late fees under Section 234E, as provided by amendments to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The tribunal rejected the adjournment request as no sufficient cause was shown. The condonation petition for delay was also rejected as the reason cited was not valid and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings were valid and the addition on merits was justified. However, the addition was to be apportioned equally among the assessee and his two sons.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's grievance regarding the correct computation of long-term capital gains. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS/TCS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for cessation of liability as it was not an actual cessation. It also deleted the rent disallowance, finding no merit in the revenue's argument of a colorable device. However, the addition for long-term capital gains was upheld, as the transfer of the capital asset was deemed to have occurred on the date of the registered development agreement.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c), which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, fees under Section 234E can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 12.10 crores as unexplained cash credit. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors, even after remand proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had already reversed the PCIT's revision directions in a previous appeal for the same assessee. Therefore, the current appeal was rendered infructuous.
The tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 37,19,000 as unexplained cash credit, finding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the alleged purchasers. However, an enhancement made by the CIT(A) to the agricultural income claim was deleted.
The tribunal affirmed the addition of unexplained cash as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation. A lump sum addition of Rs. 1.00 lakh was made for gold ornaments, and the deemed interest income addition was deleted as the assessee followed the cash system of accounting.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's grievance regarding the correct computation of long-term capital gains. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings were valid and the addition on merits was justified. However, the addition was to be apportioned equally among the assessee and his two sons.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c), which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, fees under Section 234E can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c), which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fees can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue did not object to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c), which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, the fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was amended effective June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS/TCS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS/TCS statements, was inserted with effect from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the fee cannot be levied for defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal noted that the Central Processing Centre (CPC) had only proposed an adjustment and the appeal was premature. The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that while some residential units exceeded the 1500 sq.ft. limit, the assessee was entitled to proportionate deduction for units that complied with the conditions. The Assessing Officer was directed to recalculate the deduction on a pro-rata basis.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which provides for the levy of fee for delay in furnishing TDS statements, was amended effective June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.
The tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 37,19,000 as unexplained cash credit, finding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the alleged purchasers. However, an enhancement made by the CIT(A) to the agricultural income claim was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c), which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fees can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c) allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, such fees can only be levied for defaults committed after this date.