Loading ITAT cases…
116 orders · Page 2 of 3
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, 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 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 set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the applications for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide necessary details and evidence to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the applications to the CIT(E)'s file. The assessee was directed to provide necessary details and evidence to substantiate its case for fresh adjudication.
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 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 dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to condone the delay and decide the matters on merit, citing Supreme Court judgments on substantial justice. The Tribunal also partly deleted the penalty under Section 270A based on a prior ITAT decision allowing a significant portion of the Section 80P deduction.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to condone the delay and decide the matters on merit, citing Supreme Court judgments on substantial justice. The Tribunal also partly deleted the penalty under Section 270A based on a prior ITAT decision allowing a significant portion of the Section 80P deduction.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 200A(c) for levying late fees under section 234E is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date. The matter was restored to the TDS Officer for recalculation.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 200A(c) for levying late fees under section 234E is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date. The matter was restored to the TDS Officer for recalculation.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 200A(c) for levying late fees under section 234E is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date. The matter was restored to the TDS Officer for recalculation.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay was not justified, especially when the assessee was challenging the very jurisdiction to levy the late fee. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Jiji Varghese vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the delay, if any, ought to have been condoned.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to condone the delay and decide the matters on merit, citing Supreme Court judgments on substantial justice. The Tribunal also partly deleted the penalty under Section 270A based on a prior ITAT decision allowing a significant portion of the Section 80P deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting it was not intentional. It found that the CIT(A) had erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without a proper hearing and by not disposing of the appeal on merits as required. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed with a delay of 971 days without condoning the delay, stating that there was no reasonable cause for the delay and thus the appeal could not be admitted. The ITAT, however, condoned the delay of 971 days, considering the peculiar facts and legal precedents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by considering the assessee's reasons as a 'reasonable cause' and relying on Apex Court judgments. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issues on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the additions had a direct correlation with the assessee's husband's income tax return. While the husband had shown the sale and purchase of property for claiming benefits, the assessee's income computation was not furnished, and supporting documents for short-term capital gain were lacking. The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the justice-oriented approach and relevant judgments. Since the Ld.CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits, the case was remitted back for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the issues faced by the assessee due to fraud by the erstwhile secretary and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 807 days without condoning it. The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and the 'reasonable cause' for the delay, condoned the delay. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had furnished details of deductions claimed and paid due taxes.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 807 days without condoning it. The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and the 'reasonable cause' for the delay, condoned the delay. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had furnished details of deductions claimed and paid due taxes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee neither participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders. However, considering the totality of facts and the assessee's prayer, an opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 268 days in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had erred in dismissing the appeals in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. For ITA No. 1368/PUN/2025, concerning quantum additions under Section 43CA and for delayed payment of PF/ESIC, the Tribunal noted the assessee's non-participation before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A)'s dismissal without discussing merits. Citing the Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication. For ITA No. 1369/PUN/2025, relating to penalty under Section 270A, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had also dismissed this appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits. As the quantum addition issues were remitted, the penalty appeal, being consequential, was also remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication. The findings of the CIT(A)/NFAC were set aside, and the grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 268 days for the appeal before it, noting the circumstances and the Supreme Court's liberal approach. It also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits and remitted both the quantum addition and penalty appeal to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a justice-oriented approach and reliance on Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 391 days, relying on Apex Court judgments, finding the delay not intentional. The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without discussing the merits, as Section 250(6) mandates a speaking order. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 45 days, citing a justice-oriented approach and reliance on Supreme Court judgments. The appeal was remitted to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.