ITAT Ranchi Judgments — May 2019

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act 2015, which enables the levy of late fees under Section 234E, is prospective. Therefore, late fees cannot be levied for TDS statements filed for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations under Section 200A.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act 2015, which enables the levy of late fees under Section 234E, is prospective. Therefore, late fees cannot be levied for TDS statements filed for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations under Section 200A.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a change of opinion, as the issues raised were already considered during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and consequent orders were quashed.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case, considering the interest of justice and fair play.

The ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to represent their case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the AO for early disposal.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the AO for early disposal.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act 2015, which enables the levy of late fees under Section 234E, is prospective. Therefore, late fees cannot be levied for TDS statements filed for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations under Section 200A.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without adjudicating on merits. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without adjudicating on merits. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the activity of dehusking paddy into rice amounts to 'manufacture or production' and is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A). The Tribunal also found that the Pr.CIT's revision under Section 263 was not justified as there was no inadequate enquiry by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without adjudicating on merits. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act 2015, which enables the levy of late fees under Section 234E, is prospective. Therefore, late fees cannot be levied for TDS statements filed for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations under Section 200A.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act 2015, which enables the levy of late fees under Section 234E, is prospective. Therefore, late fees cannot be levied for TDS statements filed for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations under Section 200A.

The Tribunal held that for Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) to apply, the assessee must be found to be the owner of assets during a search and claim they were acquired from undisclosed income. Since there was no such finding, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that for Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) to apply, the assessee must be found to be the owner of assets during a search and claim they were acquired from undisclosed income. Since there was no such finding, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance, leading to the dismissal of appeals for want of prosecution. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance, leading to the dismissal of appeals for want of prosecution. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that for Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) to apply, the assessee must be found to be the owner of assets during a search and claim they were acquired from undisclosed income. Since there was no such finding, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal, following the principle of consistency and a previous year's order where similar additions were deleted, restored the appeal to the AO. The AO was directed to pass an order based on the CIT(A)'s previous favorable decision for the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the 5-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law as they did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the proceedings were initiated. This omission indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This lack of clarity indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, no late fee under Section 234E could be levied for TDS statements filed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law as they did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This omission led to a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This lack of clarity indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A for such demands before that date. The levy was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. This lack of clarity indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The ITAT held that remuneration paid to partners was allowable as per the partnership deed. Consultancy charges were also allowed as no defects were pointed out. However, a portion of other expenses was disallowed. Depreciation on UPS was allowed at 60%, and interest under section 234B was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, no late fee under Section 234E could be levied for TDS statements processed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing before the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowances, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that club expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. It also agreed that loss on sale of fixed assets is a capital loss and not allowable as a business expense.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A for such demands before that date. The levy was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law as they did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This omission led to a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technicalities without considering the merits. To render substantial justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing before the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, as amended effective from 01.06.2015, was prospective. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed prior to this date.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte and that the assessee could not present documentary evidence. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, as amended effective from 01.06.2015, was prospective. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective. Therefore, no late fee could be levied for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective. Therefore, no late fee could be levied for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective. Therefore, no late fee could be levied for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, as amended effective from 01.06.2015, was prospective. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed prior to this date.