Loading ITAT cases…
64 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that while the addition might be justified due to lack of evidence, the explanation offered by the assessee was not found to be false. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 was invalid and void ab initio because it was issued before the required approval from the competent authority was obtained. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that when interest income exceeds interest expenses, no disallowance under section 14A for interest is warranted. For administrative expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,50,000 per assessment year to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that when interest income exceeds interest expenses, no disallowance under section 14A for interest is warranted. For administrative expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,50,000 per assessment year to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that when interest income exceeds interest expenses, no disallowance under section 14A for interest is warranted. For administrative expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,50,000 per assessment year to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on material already available during the original assessment and was therefore without jurisdiction. The reassessment was quashed as it was based on a change of opinion without any new tangible material.
The Tribunal granted the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals. It was clarified that if the assessee fails to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons, they can seek restoration of the original appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's written request and the option exercised under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme's benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if the assessee failed to avail the scheme's benefits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that the discrepancy in turnover might be due to a clerical error in the Service Tax return. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh verification with the Service Tax Department.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek restoration if they fail to avail the scheme benefits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 66 days, citing the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal noted that the assessee would not benefit from the delay and that a similar delay was condoned for a relative.
The Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeal pending as the assessee had opted to settle the issue under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.