Loading ITAT cases…
29 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are not leviable when income is assessed on an estimation basis and there is no conclusive evidence of concealment. Additionally, for certain assessment years, the penalty was wrongly levied under Section 271(1)(c) instead of Section 271AAA.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are not leviable when income is assessed on an estimation basis and there is no conclusive evidence of concealment. Additionally, for certain assessment years, the penalty was wrongly levied under Section 271(1)(c) instead of Section 271AAA.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are not leviable when income is assessed on an estimation basis and there is no conclusive evidence of concealment. Additionally, for certain assessment years, the penalty was wrongly levied under Section 271(1)(c) instead of Section 271AAA.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are not leviable when income is assessed on an estimation basis and there is no conclusive evidence of concealment. Additionally, for certain assessment years, the penalty was wrongly levied under Section 271(1)(c) instead of Section 271AAA.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are not leviable when income is assessed on an estimation basis and there is no conclusive evidence of concealment. Additionally, for certain assessment years, the penalty was wrongly levied under Section 271(1)(c) instead of Section 271AAA.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are not leviable when income is assessed on an estimation basis and there is no conclusive evidence of concealment. Additionally, for certain assessment years, the penalty was wrongly levied under Section 271(1)(c) instead of Section 271AAA.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of income but reduced the net profit percentage from 10% to 8%. The Tribunal also deleted the penalty levied under Section 271F, following a co-ordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of income but reduced the net profit percentage from 10% to 8%. The Tribunal also deleted the penalty levied under Section 271F, following a co-ordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition. The AO failed to establish that the Kolkata-based companies were shell entities or benamis of the assessee, and the investment was not proved to be the assessee's undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that while there were technical breaches on both sides, substantial justice should prevail. The CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the AO which was not received, and the assessee had submitted evidence to the CIT(A). Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not delayed in view of the Supreme Court's extension of limitation. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the seized material did not relate to the impugned assessment years. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was quashed, and consequently, the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that LIFO is a recognized method of accounting for stock valuation, and the assessee has the option to adopt it consistently. The AO cannot arbitrarily change the method without showing it is erroneous or inapplicable. The Tribunal also noted that such adjustments are often revenue-neutral.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the seized material did not relate to the impugned assessment years. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was quashed, and consequently, the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the seized material did not relate to the impugned assessment years. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was quashed, and consequently, the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.
The Tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, which disallowed delayed PF/ESI payments under Section 36(1)(va). However, due to the assessee's specific submission about grace periods and delayed salary, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that since the expenditure was incurred at the direction of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) and was in the nature of beautification work, it could be considered as an advertisement and thus incurred for the purpose of business. Therefore, the expenditure is allowable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form 5. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2021, operates prospectively, and therefore, the disallowance of PF and ESI payments made within the due date of filing the return is not permissible.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2021, operates prospectively, and therefore, the disallowance of PF and ESI payments made within the due date of filing the return is not permissible.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to produce evidence. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that no prudent businessman would incur such a loss.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of valuing the bonds was rational and supported by government-issued rates, distinguishing it from a previous case. For leave encashment, the Tribunal directed verification of actual payments based on a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal restored the Section 35AD claim to the AO for verification of fresh evidence, as it was not before the AO initially. The leave encashment deduction was also restored to the AO, following Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of valuing the bonds was rational and supported by government-issued rates, distinguishing it from a previous case. For leave encashment, the Tribunal directed verification of actual payments based on a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal restored the Section 35AD claim to the AO for verification of fresh evidence, as it was not before the AO initially. The leave encashment deduction was also restored to the AO, following Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that punitive charges for overloading are not an expense prohibited by law, but rather a payment permitted by railway authorities as per their notification. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, operates prospectively. Therefore, PF and ESIC paid beyond the prescribed date but within the due date of filing the return is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, operates prospectively. Therefore, payments made within the return filing due date are allowable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, operates prospectively. Therefore, PF and ESIC paid beyond the prescribed date but within the due date of filing the return is allowable.