Loading ITAT cases…
116 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed solely on the grounds of delay. The merits of the case were not considered by the lower appellate authority.
The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in NTPC vs CIT. It held that the notices under Section 148 and the consequent orders under Section 148A(d) were issued beyond the permissible time limit. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court which quashed similar notices as time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to claim the deduction under section 80P in the return of income and also did not file the return within the due date. Both these conditions are mandatory as per sections 80AC and 80A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessee is not eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that deemed rental income on unsold inventory flats, which are stock-in-trade, cannot be added as income from house property, following various High Court and Tribunal precedents. Regarding the interest on fixed deposits, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity to the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue concerning the same assessee for a different assessment year was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following the precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with similar directions.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. It found reasonable cause for the delay in filing before the Tribunal and condoned it.
The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in NTPC vs CIT. It held that the notices under Section 148 and the consequent orders under Section 148A(d) were issued beyond the permissible time limit. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court which quashed similar notices as time-barred.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue concerning the same assessee for a different assessment year was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following the precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with similar directions.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 issued for AY 2015-16 was time-barred. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Supreme Court in Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. and other High Courts and ITAT benches, which held that for AY 2015-16, notices issued after April 1, 2021, are liable to be dropped.
The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 148 were issued after the lapse of three years from the end of the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CCIT) or equivalent, not the Pr. CIT. Consequently, the notices were deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 148 were issued after the lapse of three years from the end of the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CCIT) or equivalent, not the Pr. CIT. Consequently, the notices were deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the Rs. 2,85,00,000/- expenditure, finding the transaction to be a sham arrangement to provide an entry and not a genuine business expenditure. The reliance on Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Khyati Realtors (P) Ltd was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10/10B, or non-mentioning of a specific purpose in it, should not disentitle the trust from claiming exemption under Section 11(2), especially when a resolution for accumulation was passed and the audit report was filed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court judgments, held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. It set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order, directing the condonation of delay and a decision on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order, directing the condonation of delay and a decision on merits. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's bonafide reasons and the need for adjudication on merits. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's bonafide reasons and the need for adjudication on merits. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were therefore deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's bonafide reasons and the need for adjudication on merits. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 153 days, finding reasonable cause due to the assessee's medical problems. The issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the Section 80IA(4) deduction. It followed its own prior decisions for the assessee, which held that road signages do not constitute an infrastructure facility as defined under the Act, despite an appeal pending before the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the entire deposit, taxing the entire amount was not justified. Following a precedent, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a net profit of 2% on the deposits.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the Section 80IA(4) deduction. It followed its own prior decisions for the assessee, which held that road signages do not constitute an infrastructure facility as defined under the Act, despite an appeal pending before the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the issues on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The assessees were directed to file revised computations to claim the exemption and receive any eligible refunds.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the onus to prove the source of capital contribution lies with the partner, not the firm, and that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition for capital. The Tribunal also noted the partial deletion of demonetization deposits was justified.