Loading ITAT cases…
269 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) as cooperative banks are also cooperative societies. For interest earned from nationalized banks, the issue was restored to the AO for verification of liquidity ratio maintenance.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) is to then decide the issues on merits after affording a proper and fair opportunity to the assessee.
Considering the interest of natural justice, the tribunal allowed the assessee one more opportunity. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide a fair hearing and the assessee to avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the Central Processing Centre (CPC)'s power to make *prima facie* adjustments for disallowing deductions under Chapter VI-A, specifically Section 80P, by invoking sub-clause (v) of Section 143(1)(a) was enabled only with effect from 01.04.2021. Since the impugned intimation was processed on 14.06.2019, the adjustment was outside the CPC's jurisdiction and thus deserved to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While the legal grounds regarding limitation were not pressed, the Tribunal restored the matter on merits to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. This was due to the assessment order being passed ex-parte, the non-consideration of assessee's submissions, and the prevailing Covid-19 circumstances. The assessee was granted an opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While the legal grounds regarding limitation were not pressed, the Tribunal restored the matter on merits to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. This was due to the assessment order being passed ex-parte, the non-consideration of assessee's submissions, and the prevailing Covid-19 circumstances. The assessee was granted an opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals as the Departmental Representative had no objection. It was clarified that if the Vivad Se Vishwas applications are rejected, the assessees can move for recalling the appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals as the Departmental Representative had no objection. It was clarified that if the Vivad Se Vishwas applications are rejected, the assessees can move for recalling the appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals as the Departmental Representative had no objection. It was clarified that if the Vivad Se Vishwas applications are rejected, the assessees can move for recalling the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative had no objection. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as 'Withdrawn', with a provision that the assessee could file a Miscellaneous Application to recall the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed Form No.1. Considering this and the passage of time, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals as the Departmental Representative had no objection. It was clarified that if the Vivad Se Vishwas applications are rejected, the assessees can move for recalling the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal. The reasons provided were considered vague and an afterthought, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's alternative submission regarding the calculation of interest on partners' capital. The matter of disallowance of interest on partners' capital was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The disallowance of 10% of various expenses was reduced to 5%.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee admitted to a data punching error, the CIT(A) had not conducted proper inquiries or obtained a remand report from the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal granted the permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if the Final Certificate under the scheme is not issued.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted substantial documentation to explain the deposits and credits. The CIT(A) primarily relied on the remand report without examining the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from prosecuting the appeal effectively and deserved another opportunity. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal found that additional evidences submitted by the assessee regarding the change in business status from partnership to proprietorship were crucial and needed examination. Therefore, the matter was set-aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not deciding the appeal on merits and by dismissing the first ground in limine. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)/AO had not answered crucial questions regarding the sale of sugar at concessional rates.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year had already been decided by a co-ordinate bench, granting substantial relief to the assessee. Following this, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the penalty issue afresh.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal and evidence filed by the assessee regarding exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the price fixed by the State Government under the Maharashtra Regulation of Sugarcane Price (Supplied to Factories) Act, 2013, even if higher than the Central Government's FRP, is an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(xvii) of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT circular clarified this position.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 113 days in filing the penalty appeal, noting that the quantum appeal for the same year was also restored. The issue was remitted to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction was mistakenly selected. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of both appeals.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.