Loading ITAT cases…
218 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) focused on the nature of activities rather than their genuineness, which is the requirement under Section 12AB. The financial statements for the period of provisional registration were presented. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the period of 3 years from the end of the assessment year, as the escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the notice and consequential assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid as it was based on a false premise that the assessee was a non-filer. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271F was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid as it was based on a false premise that the assessee was a non-filer. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271F was also deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. All legal issues were left open for consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the main appeal had not been disposed of. Therefore, the issues in the current appeal were restored to the file of the JCIT for re-adjudication after considering the main appeal.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. All legal issues were left open for consideration.
The Tribunal held that interest on TDS and GST is compensatory, not penal, and thus not disallowable under Section 37(1). The disallowance of custom duty was upheld as the assessee accepted it.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. All legal issues were left open for consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered the facts and directed the AO to allow the exemption. The Revenue failed to dislodge these findings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered the facts and directed the AO to allow the exemption. The Revenue failed to dislodge these findings.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application and dismissed the assessee's appeal due to defects and unexplained delay. The reasons provided for the delay were not substantiated with evidence.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on club expenses, holding them to be business expenditure. The issue regarding ICDS computation was restored to the AO for re-adjudication based on the revised audit report.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found no justification for the CIT(A)'s deletion and estimation, especially given the assessee's non-compliance and failure to file a return. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.