Loading ITAT cases…
92 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that since the audit report was filed along with the return of income and was available to the AO before the completion of assessment, it was a technical breach and penalty should not be imposed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had violated principles of natural justice by not providing a personal hearing. Considering previous ITAT decisions in favor of the assessee, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be genuine and beyond its control. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had violated principles of natural justice by not providing a personal hearing. Considering previous ITAT decisions in favor of the assessee, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if not deposited within the due date under the respective Acts, is not an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid, following jurisdictional High Court judgments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid, following jurisdictional High Court judgments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid, following jurisdictional High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was not amended to enable such adjustments. The levy of late fees for these periods was invalid.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A of the IT Act did not have an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E for late filing of TDS returns. Therefore, such levies for periods before this date were invalid.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A of the IT Act did not have an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E for late filing of TDS returns. Therefore, such levies for periods before this date were invalid.
The Tribunal considered the request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the case to the file of the AO, directing the assessee to produce necessary documents and evidence. The assessee was also instructed to update their contact details for better communication.
The Tribunal held that transit mixers, when mounted on chassis, are an integral part of the manufacturing process of RMC and not mere road transport vehicles. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation on these assets.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, prior to its amendment effective June 1, 2015, did not enable the levy of fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy for periods before this amendment was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to deduct TDS on salary payments as required by Section 192. The issue of eligibility for Section 80C deduction on PF contributions to the district cooperative bank was remitted back to the AO for verification. The issue regarding TDS on Annual Maintenance Contract payments was also remitted for verification.
The Tribunal held that the difference between Form 3CA and 3CB was a technical error, and since the audit report was available to the AO before assessment completion, no prejudice was caused to the revenue. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to deduct TDS on salary payments as required by Section 192. The issue of eligibility for Section 80C deduction on PF contributions to the district cooperative bank was remitted back to the AO for verification. The issue regarding TDS on Annual Maintenance Contract payments was also remitted for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to deduct TDS on salary payments as required by Section 192. The issue of eligibility for Section 80C deduction on PF contributions to the district cooperative bank was remitted back to the AO for verification. The issue regarding TDS on Annual Maintenance Contract payments was also remitted for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to deduct TDS on salary payments as required by Section 192. The issue of eligibility for Section 80C deduction on PF contributions to the district cooperative bank was remitted back to the AO for verification. The issue regarding TDS on Annual Maintenance Contract payments was also remitted for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to deduct TDS on salary payments as required by Section 192. The issue of eligibility for Section 80C deduction on PF contributions to the district cooperative bank was remitted back to the AO for verification. The issue regarding TDS on Annual Maintenance Contract payments was also remitted for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to deduct TDS on salary payments as required by Section 192. The issue of eligibility for Section 80C deduction on PF contributions to the district cooperative bank was remitted back to the AO for verification. The issue regarding TDS on Annual Maintenance Contract payments was also remitted for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P even if the return was filed belatedly, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the assessee's computation of business income for the purpose of Section 80P deduction.
The Tribunal held that interest received by a co-operative society from another co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It relied on jurisdictional High Court judgments which established that a district co-operative bank is a co-operative society, making the interest income eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that TDS is not required on payments to non-residents if the income is not taxable in India, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance. Regarding deemed exports, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s decision to include it for Section 10B deduction was correct.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271C is not applicable for non-remittance of TDS under certain sections, and even if applicable, Section 273B provides for waiver of penalty if there is a reasonable cause. The Tribunal found that the company's severe financial hardship constituted a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal considered the request of the assessee's counsel to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition made due to delayed PF/ESI remittance increases the assessee's profit. Following CBDT Circular No. 37/2016 and jurisdictional High Court judgments, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P on this enhanced profit.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument that the CIT(A) failed to provide the AO with an opportunity to examine additional evidence, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument that the CIT(A) failed to provide the AO with an opportunity to examine additional evidence, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel was not pressing the appeal, and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the assessee's claim regarding reserves and provisions debited to the P&L account. The AO was instructed to make necessary corrections while giving effect to the order.