Loading ITAT cases…
52 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the dispute. Consequently, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the dispute. Consequently, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.
The assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and their application was approved. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to substantiate all expenses with proper documentation, the AO's 20% disallowance was arbitrary and excessive. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the disallowance was restricted to 5%.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate, and the CIT(A) was instructed to provide a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of withdrawals and peak credit requires verification. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the AO for re-adjudication after considering withdrawals. The legal issue regarding additions without incriminating material was kept open.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of withdrawals and peak credit requires verification. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the AO for re-adjudication after considering withdrawals. The legal issue regarding additions without incriminating material was kept open.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of withdrawals and peak credit requires verification. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the AO for re-adjudication after considering withdrawals. The legal issue regarding additions without incriminating material was kept open.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of withdrawals and peak credit requires verification. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the AO for re-adjudication after considering withdrawals. The legal issue regarding additions without incriminating material was kept open.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of withdrawals and peak credit requires verification. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the AO for re-adjudication after considering withdrawals. The legal issue regarding additions without incriminating material was kept open.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of withdrawals and peak credit requires verification. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the AO for re-adjudication after considering withdrawals. The legal issue regarding additions without incriminating material was kept open.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of withdrawals and peak credit requires verification. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the AO for re-adjudication after considering withdrawals. The legal issue regarding additions without incriminating material was kept open.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of withdrawals and peak credit requires verification. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the AO for re-adjudication after considering withdrawals. The legal issue regarding additions without incriminating material was kept open.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of withdrawals and peak credit requires verification. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the AO for re-adjudication after considering withdrawals. The legal issue regarding additions without incriminating material was kept open.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of withdrawals and peak credit requires verification. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the AO for re-adjudication after considering withdrawals. The legal issue regarding additions without incriminating material was kept open.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of withdrawals and peak credit requires verification. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the AO for re-adjudication after considering withdrawals. The legal issue regarding additions without incriminating material was kept open.
The Tribunal held that the AO's application of an 8% net profit rate was arbitrary and unjustified as it lacked basis in comparable cases or the assessee's past profit history. Since the assessee's declared net profit rate was in line with or higher than previous years, no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not supplied the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, and thus the assessees' objections remained undecided. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matters back to the AO to supply the reasons and decide the objections.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under section 143(1) becomes a nullity in light of the subsequent scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) which accepted the exemption. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order confirming the 143(1) processing was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not supplied the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, and thus the assessees' objections remained undecided. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matters back to the AO to supply the reasons and decide the objections.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not supplied the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, and thus the assessees' objections remained undecided. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matters back to the AO to supply the reasons and decide the objections.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not supplied the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, and thus the assessees' objections remained undecided. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matters back to the AO to supply the reasons and decide the objections.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not supplied the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, and thus the assessees' objections remained undecided. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matters back to the AO to supply the reasons and decide the objections.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Tribunal clarified that the merits of the issue were not commented upon.
The Tribunal restored the issue of the Rs. 7,01,400/- addition to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, noting a similar issue was decided in a related case. The Tribunal also restored the issue of loan installment payments and the coal purchase discrepancy to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for the delay to be bonafide and not a deliberate attempt to evade limitation. However, the Tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings were initiated ex-parte and the CIT(A) passed a summary order without proper adjudication. An additional ground regarding the penalty being levied against the wrong person was raised.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for the delay to be bonafide and not a deliberate attempt to evade limitation. However, the Tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings were initiated ex-parte and the CIT(A) passed a summary order without proper adjudication. An additional ground regarding the penalty being levied against the wrong person was raised.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for the delay to be bonafide and not a deliberate attempt to evade limitation. However, the Tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings were initiated ex-parte and the CIT(A) passed a summary order without proper adjudication. An additional ground regarding the penalty being levied against the wrong person was raised.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for the delay to be bonafide and not a deliberate attempt to evade limitation. However, the Tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings were initiated ex-parte and the CIT(A) passed a summary order without proper adjudication. An additional ground regarding the penalty being levied against the wrong person was raised.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for the delay to be bonafide and not a deliberate attempt to evade limitation. However, the Tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings were initiated ex-parte and the CIT(A) passed a summary order without proper adjudication. An additional ground regarding the penalty being levied against the wrong person was raised.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was fact-based and required verification of the books of accounts. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to produce the books before the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was fact-based and required verification of the books of accounts. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to produce the books before the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all relevant evidence to justify the cash deposit as agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that financial charges paid under a hire purchase agreement do not constitute 'interest' as defined under Section 2(28A) and thus Section 194A is not applicable. Consequently, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the jurisdiction to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A before the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demand raised for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the jurisdiction to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A before the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demand raised for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the jurisdiction to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A before the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demand raised for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which empowered the AO to levy late fees, was prospective. Therefore, the AO lacked the jurisdiction to levy such fees for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the assessee had not made any payments requiring TDS deduction. The Assessing Officer's subsequent order under Section 154 accepted that the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS or file Form 26Q, rendering the penalty proceedings based on a non-existent default unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the assessee had not made any payments necessitating TDS deduction. The Assessing Officer's subsequent order under Section 154 also acknowledged that the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS for the alleged transactions.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the assessee had not made any payments requiring TDS deduction. The Assessing Officer's subsequent order under Section 154 accepted that the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS or file Form 26Q, rendering the penalty proceedings based on a non-existent default unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the assessee had not made any payments requiring TDS deduction. The Assessing Officer's subsequent order under Section 154 accepted that the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS or file Form 26Q, rendering the penalty proceedings based on a non-existent default unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the assessee had not made any payments requiring TDS deduction. The Assessing Officer's subsequent order under Section 154 accepted that the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS or file Form 26Q, rendering the penalty proceedings based on a non-existent default unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the jurisdiction to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A before the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demand raised for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the jurisdiction to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A before the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demand raised for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the jurisdiction to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A before the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demand raised for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the jurisdiction to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A before the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demand raised for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the jurisdiction to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A before the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demand raised for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the jurisdiction to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A before the amendment effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demand raised for these periods was invalid.