Loading ITAT cases…
239 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, fee u/s.234E can only be levied for defaults committed after 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, fee u/s.234E can only be levied for defaults committed after 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, fee u/s.234E can only be levied for defaults committed after 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, fee u/s.234E can only be levied for defaults committed after 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, fee u/s.234E can only be levied for defaults committed after 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, fee u/s.234E can only be levied for defaults committed after 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, fee u/s.234E can only be levied for defaults committed after 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, fee u/s.234E can only be levied for defaults committed after 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, fee u/s.234E can only be levied for defaults committed after 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, fee u/s.234E can only be levied for defaults committed after 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals should be condoned, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji. Since the appeals were decided ex-parte, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals should be condoned, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji. Since the appeals were decided ex-parte, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing principles of substantial justice over technicalities. Since the appeals were decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance, the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals should be condoned, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji. Since the appeals were decided ex-parte, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing principles of substantial justice over technicalities. Since the appeals were decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance, the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, fee u/s.234E can only be levied for defaults committed after 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if the Final Certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not issued.
Following various judicial precedents, including High Court and ITAT decisions, the tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The AO was directed to allow the deduction of Rs. 11,42,735/-.
The Tribunal held that R&D expenditure incurred in India is eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). Capital R&D expenditure incurred outside India is eligible for deduction under Section 35(1)(iv). The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal regarding disallowance of weighted deduction for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal held that R&D expenditure incurred in India is eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). Capital R&D expenditure incurred outside India is eligible for deduction under Section 35(1)(iv). The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal regarding disallowance of weighted deduction for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal held that R&D expenditure incurred in India is eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). Capital R&D expenditure incurred outside India is eligible for deduction under Section 35(1)(iv). The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal regarding disallowance of weighted deduction for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred outside India on R&D can qualify for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) if it meets the conditions. It also ruled that the eligibility of weighted deduction is not restricted by the quantification of expenditure by the prescribed authority, especially for assessment years prior to the amendment of Rule 6(7A).
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) erred by not recognizing that the reported agricultural income was net income after expenditure, meaning gross receipts would be higher. The assessee provided undisputed bills totaling Rs. 6,34,147/- as evidence for gross receipts from mango sales. The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) was erroneous and directed the AO to delete it.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding 'reasonable cause' based on the assessee's affidavit. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to remain vigilant.
The Tribunal condoned the 226-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's reasons (notices sent to auditors, lack of technical expertise with the faceless system) to be a reasonable cause. The matter concerning the merits of the additions is remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without giving adequate reasons for rejecting the assessee's adjournment applications, thereby denying a proper opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice, and as the assessee claimed to have evidence, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to decide the appeal in accordance with law.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication. Consequently, the issue of penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) was also restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found no documentary evidence to support the assessee's claim that her consultant provided his email without her knowledge. It was noted that the assessee must have provided login details to her consultant and could not now claim unawareness or lack of action against the consultant. Therefore, no sufficient cause was established for non-compliance, and the penalty order was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee intended to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024, and the Revenue had no objection.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions made under sections 69B and 69C and held that section 115BBE was not applicable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that similar surrendered income from the same survey was accepted at normal rates in the preceding year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that estimating profit at 8% was justified given the assessee's historical profit margins and industry practices. The addition of the entire sub-contract amount would have resulted in an unrealistic profit percentage.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee intended to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024, and the Revenue had no objection.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee intended to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024, and the Revenue had no objection.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee intended to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024, and the Revenue had no objection.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee intended to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024, and the Revenue had no objection.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee intended to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024, and the Revenue had no objection.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 111 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 SC. The Tribunal emphasized that refusing to condone delay can defeat the cause of justice, and substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. Consequently, the finding of the CIT(A) was set aside. The Tribunal remitted the issues on merit to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) to decide the case denovo. The AO was directed to refer the matter to the DVO for valuation. The assessee was cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the reopening of assessment proceedings under Section 147 against a cancelled/old PAN was not in accordance with the Income-tax Act, especially as the department was aware of the PAN change. It noted that similar contentions were accepted in other assessment years and found no error in the CIT(A)'s order. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee went to the root of the disallowance, and the Ld. DR had no objection to its admission. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the issue of the alleged commission expense back to the file of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh examination and decision in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 67 within the due date under Section 139(1) is directory and not mandatory, citing previous judgments. Since the belatedly filed Form 67 was available with the CPC, the FTC claim should not have been denied. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the FTC after due verification.
The Tribunal held that the addition of capital gain in the hands of the assessee amounted to double taxation, as the same transaction was already assessed in the hands of the assessee's husband. The Tribunal found the addition unsustainable and ordered its deletion.
The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine for non-prosecution. The Tribunal, finding reasonable cause for non-appearance due to the Covid-19 pandemic and with no objection from the DR, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice, finding it valid as the escaped income exceeded Rs. 50,00,000 and the assessee did not file an ITR. However, on merits, the Tribunal restored the issue of the immovable property transaction and other additions to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a 'De novo' adjudication, noting that the details furnished by the assessee were not considered by the AO.
The ITAT observed that the CIT (Exemption) failed to provide proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the orders and remanded both matters (12A registration and consequential 80G approval) back to the CIT (Exemption) for de novo adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to comply with notices and produce documents.
The Tribunal, applying principles from the Supreme Court, condoned the delay in filing the appeals with the CIT(A), acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. It remitted all penalty and quantum addition matters back to the ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, setting aside the previous orders.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted an Audit Report in Form 10B, which was certified by a Chartered Accountant. Considering the assessee's registration u/s.12AA and fulfillment of criteria for exemption u/s.11 and 12, denial of exemption was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal due to filing an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. With no objection from the DR, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT observed that the CIT (Exemption) failed to provide proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the orders and remanded both matters (12A registration and consequential 80G approval) back to the CIT (Exemption) for de novo adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to comply with notices and produce documents.
The Tribunal, applying principles from the Supreme Court, condoned the delay in filing the appeals with the CIT(A), acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. It remitted all penalty and quantum addition matters back to the ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, setting aside the previous orders.