Loading ITAT cases…
387 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to reasonable cause and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass speaking orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication of all issues raised.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh after granting the assessee a maximum of three opportunities to furnish documentary evidence for the claimed deductions and loss.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) may not have had the power to set aside the assessment order under amended Section 251(1)(a), the Tribunal itself has the power to do so. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order violated section 250(6) of the Act as it did not adjudicate on merits and was passed without proper examination. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) provided insufficient opportunity to the appellant to furnish details and that the rejection was unjustified. The appellant was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to reasonable cause and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass speaking orders.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders and restored the matters to the CIT's file for fresh adjudication. The CIT was directed to decide the applications afresh after considering the pending earlier application for regular registration and providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person is a nullity and therefore void ab initio. Following established judicial precedents, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied the deduction under Section 80IB(10) as they had applied for the completion certificate and the project was otherwise completed with possession handed over to flat owners. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents where substantial compliance was considered sufficient.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to appear and present their case without further adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing it to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The assessee's reasons for the delay, including issues with her consultant and personal circumstances, were considered sufficient.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that the delay in filing the appeal was due to sufficient cause. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on medical reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders and restored the matters to the CIT's file for fresh adjudication. The CIT was directed to decide the applications afresh after considering the pending earlier application for regular registration and providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that once an assessee opts for the VSVS scheme and the Designated Authority issues Form No. 3, followed by the assessee filing Form No. 4 after payment, no further rectification proceedings under Section 154 are permissible. Such actions violate the conclusiveness provided by the VSVS Act.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to advertisement and sales promotion expenses, marketing support charges, and depreciation on coolers, following its own previous decisions. However, the issue of Section 80G deduction was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence to rebut the AO's findings regarding the transfer of property and receipt of consideration. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not provide date-wise details of cash payments made to the seller and his family members. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to submit further evidence.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment under Section 148 was invalid as the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs and more than three years had passed since the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the penalty levied was also quashed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the Assessing Officer erred by summing up all credit entries in a running account without considering the debit side. The Tribunal also noted that the loan transactions were routed through banking channels and supported by documentation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation regarding commission income was not fully substantiated, making the entire deposit as income was excessive. Therefore, a reasonable percentage of the cash deposit was to be considered as income.