Loading ITAT cases…
113 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate his claim of prior investments and the source of funds. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed as the assessee could not prove that the credits were sale proceeds of his own investments.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate his claim of prior investments and the source of funds. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed as the assessee could not prove that the credits were sale proceeds of his own investments.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal confirmed the net profit at 4% of the total turnover, directing the AO to reduce the addition accordingly. The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide crucial purchase and creditor details.
The Tribunal held that since there was no difference between the income in the original processed return and the assessed income, Section 270A was not applicable. The revised return was considered non-est as it was not processed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the society's repayment of loans and deposits in cash violated Section 269T. It found no reasonable cause for the violation and distinguished the case laws relied upon by the assessee.
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, remitting the issue back to the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence and provide an effective opportunity to the assessee, imposing a cost.
The Tribunal decided to adjudicate the jurisdictional issue first, as it was a significant legal ground. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide this ground after the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision on similar jurisdictional issues.
The Tribunal held that a notice for penalty under section 271AAB is invalid if it fails to specify the charge and the category under which the penalty is proposed. Consequently, the initiation of penalty proceedings becomes invalid, and the penalty cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that the donations should be treated as corpus donations. The Tribunal noted that the amounts were small, donor details were provided, receipts indicated fixed deposits, and similar donations were accepted as corpus in earlier years.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to adjudicate all grounds, especially the jurisdictional issue concerning JAO vs. FAO. This decision is to be made after the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court decides on the validity of notices issued by JAO.
The Tribunal admitted fresh evidence submitted by the assessee and decided to remit the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication regarding the deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of cash deposits as undisclosed income, finding the assessee's explanation lacked credibility and contemporaneous evidence. However, it directed that the tax be levied at 30% instead of 60%, following a favorable High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority must adjudicate the legal ground regarding the validity of the notice before proceeding to the merits. Since the CIT(A) failed to do so, the matter was remitted back.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) could not direct the AO to tax gross receipts when the assessment order was set aside for fresh consideration. The matter was remitted to the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an effective opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2) for interest earned on its own surplus funds deposited with the bank. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The ITAT decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was due to the submission of new evidence before the ITAT that required examination by the AO.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed a cryptic order without adjudicating several grounds of appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to reconsider all grounds and pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity to the appellant.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by disposing of the second application using the ITAT's order pertaining to the first application. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the CIT(E) was directed to pass a fresh order.
The ITAT held that the assessee's appeal was not maintainable because the grounds of appeal did not challenge the order of the CIT(A), but rather the order of the Assessing Officer. The ITAT emphasized that the order of the CIT(A) merges the order of the Assessing Officer, and only the CIT(A)'s order should be challenged in further appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide evidence of the utilization of the withdrawn funds. Considering the totality of the facts, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's explanation for the redeposited cash.
The Tribunal admitted the legal ground regarding the validity of the reassessment notice, as it goes to the root of the matter. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision in light of subsequent amendments and High Court pronouncements.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 127 days based on the affidavit and medical certificate provided. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits.
The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay of 73 days, citing a liberal approach for procedural delays. The appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a penalty imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground of appeal concerning the AO's failure to provide an opportunity to object to the SRO value under Section 50C. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that a similar appeal against the same order was already pending. Considering the assessee's request and the duplicate nature of the appeal, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a speaking order and did not deal with the specific grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) confirmed additions despite the assessee furnishing evidence that the land sold was agricultural.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had remitted similar matters concerning the jurisdiction of Faceless vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to issue reassessment notices to High Courts. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the current appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the receipt of cash was admitted, the Revenue failed to establish that this receipt constituted taxable income in the assessee's hands. The mere disallowance of expenditure in the payer's hands does not automatically make the receipt taxable for the recipient.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the legal issues raised by the assessee regarding the validity and limitation of the notice issued under Section 148. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication of these specific grounds.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was for bona fide reasons and ought to have been condoned. The CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it in limine.
The Tribunal held that the penalty must be re-quantified based on the revised tax liability determined by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-calculate the penalty accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as per the first proviso to section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to bona fide reasons, considering the assessee's lack of education and rural background. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The ITAT condoned the 49-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), following a Supreme Court decision that advocates for a liberal approach in condoning procedural delays. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed a condonation petition with supporting documents, which the CIT(A) overlooked. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide on the condonation of delay and then the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in view of the medical certificates and the detailed affidavit of the Chartered Accountant explaining the reasons. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits of the appeal. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must dispose of the grounds on merits under Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. However, considering the significant delay of over 400 days, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the assessee society, payable to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Authority within one month. The issue regarding the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P was not decided on merits by the ITAT, as the matter was remanded.
The ITAT condoned the 41-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's lack of knowledge of tax laws and a liberal approach to procedural delays. The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54F restricts exemption to one residential house. However, it remanded the matter to the AO to determine the indexed cost of the demolished building, allow proportionate stamp duty, and verify the eligibility for exemption under Section 54F for one residential unit with the higher investment.