Loading ITAT cases…
285 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as provided by the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, is applicable only after June 1, 2015. Since the defaults pertained to periods before this amendment, the levy was not justified.
The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), is applicable only for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee could not be levied for the period in question.
The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), is applicable only for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee could not be levied for the period in question.
The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), is applicable only for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee could not be levied for the period in question.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not guilty of contumacious conduct as no prejudice was caused and the inaction on the adjournment petition led the assessee to believe time was granted. Therefore, penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as provided by the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, is applicable only after June 1, 2015. Since the defaults pertained to periods before this amendment, the levy was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as provided by the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, is applicable only after June 1, 2015. Since the defaults pertained to periods before this amendment, the levy was not justified.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the low tax effect, which was below the enhanced monetary limits for appeals stipulated by the CBDT.
The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), is applicable only for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee could not be levied for the period in question.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s action of dismissing the appeal without affording an opportunity to be heard violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not guilty of contumacious conduct as no prejudice was caused and the inaction on the adjournment petition led the assessee to believe time was granted. Therefore, penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), could only be applied for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Since the defaults were for earlier periods, the levy was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not guilty of contumacious conduct as no prejudice was caused and the inaction on the adjournment petition led the assessee to believe time was granted. Therefore, penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that since the entire information regarding the sale of the helicopter was available in the return of income, the error was bona fide and inadvertent. Therefore, the assessee could not be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It deleted disallowances related to interest on security deposits, depreciation on intangible assets, and treated renewable energy certificate sale proceeds and sales tax incentives as capital receipts. However, it upheld the transfer pricing adjustment for export of goods and rejected the claim for education cess. The disallowance under Section 35(2AB) was partly affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is allowable, following previous Pune Tribunal decisions that favored the assessee. It also confirmed the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income parked with cooperative banks.
The Tribunal held that the premium paid for insuring the life of the director cannot be allowed as a deduction because the assessee failed to prove the business expediency of the expenditure and failed to establish it as a key man insurance policy.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's turnover, indicated by its gross profit, exceeded Rs. 1 crore, making Section 44AB applicable. The assessee's claim of bonafide belief was rejected as it was a builder with professional advice, and the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is allowable, following previous Pune Tribunal decisions that favored the assessee. It also confirmed the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income parked with cooperative banks.
The Tribunal held that since the sale of the helicopter was reflected in the annual accounts and the error was an inadvertent mistake in calculation, the assessee could not be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that when the primary addition on which the penalty was levied is deleted, the penalty cannot survive. This is a settled position of law, supported by Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the delay and that substantial justice is more important. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the entire information regarding the sale of the helicopter was available in the return of income, the error was bona fide and inadvertent. Therefore, the assessee could not be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not guilty of contumacious conduct as no prejudice was caused and the inaction on the adjournment petition led the assessee to believe time was granted. Therefore, penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was not leviable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals based on the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme without verifying if the assessee had actually opted for it. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals based on the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme without verifying if the assessee had actually opted for it. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department, as clarified by the CBDT.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to verify the agricultural use of the land for the preceding two years made the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's revision directions were upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that there was a reasonable cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the case to be decided denovo on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that once the primary addition is deleted, there is no basis for levying a penalty for concealment. Therefore, the penalty cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as provided by the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, is applicable only after June 1, 2015. Since the defaults pertained to periods before this amendment, the levy was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.
The Tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings and the additions made under Section 68. It found that the assessee failed to substantiate the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, particularly concerning the actual creditor.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.
The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, it was not applicable to defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.
The tribunal held that the amendment inserting clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, it was not applicable to defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income is not an exception. It also clarified that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits parked with a registered cooperative bank.