Loading ITAT cases…
59 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to Provident Fund must be deposited by the due date for claiming deduction. Non-compliance with this condition leads to disallowance.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's application for condonation of delay as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause and evidence. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was not admitted.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai. The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding unexplained long-term capital gains and commission paid.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai. The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding unexplained long-term capital gains and commission paid.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai. The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding unexplained long-term capital gains and commission paid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the accountant's mistake was a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay and that the assessees should not be penalized for it. The appeals were admitted for hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the accountant's mistake was a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay and that the assessees should not be penalized for it. The appeals were admitted for hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the accountant's mistake was a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay and that the assessees should not be penalized for it. The appeals were admitted for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had recorded sufficient satisfaction to invoke Section 14A. However, it found that the disallowance under the third limb of Rule 8D should be restricted to 0.5% of the investments yielding exempt income.