Loading ITAT cases…
63 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the reasons provided were not found to be false and the assessee had a substantially good case on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI paid beyond statutory due dates but before the income tax return filing due date cannot be made in an intimation under Section 143(1)(a). The confirmation of this disallowance by the CIT(A) was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiry regarding the bad debts claim, which was a write-off of earlier provisions disallowed. Regarding the PF contractor payable, it was determined not to be a statutory due falling under Section 43B. Therefore, the revision order was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the eligibility for exemption under Section 54 was debatable. Since the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view, the revision order under Section 263 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This was to provide an opportunity for the assessee to produce evidence and for the AO to examine it.