Loading ITAT cases…
496 orders · Page 9 of 10
The Tribunal held that no proceedings can continue against the corporate debtor (assessee) due to the insolvency proceedings. Section 238 of the Code overrides other statutes, including the Income-tax Act, and all claims must be dealt with under the Code.
The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained jewellery and cash to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee to present additional evidence and for the AO to consider CBDT circulars and verify fund availability.
The Tribunal held that no proceedings can continue against the corporate debtor (assessee) due to the insolvency proceedings. Section 238 of the Code overrides other statutes, including the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It ruled that late deposit of employee contributions to PF/ESIC is deductible if made before filing the return, CSR expenses incurred before the amendment to Section 37(1) are deductible, and Section 14A disallowance is not applicable in the absence of exempt income.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that no proceedings can continue against the corporate debtor (assessee) due to the insolvency proceedings. Section 238 of the Code overrides other statutes, including the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A is allowable on self-assessment tax, even for periods prior to the amendment, by following binding High Court precedents. The authorities below erred in disallowing the claim based on the amendment's effective date.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the transactions, though substantial, did not exhibit the frequency and pattern of a share trader. The gains were primarily from a single scrip, supporting the classification as investment.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no proceedings can continue against the corporate debtor (assessee) due to the insolvency proceedings. Section 238 of the Code overrides other statutes, including the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal found no basis for the CIT(A)'s acceptance of the assessee's offer of 1% additional income, especially when past profit rates were higher. It modified the CIT(A)'s order by directing the AO to adopt a net profit rate of 4.5% on the turnover.
The Tribunal found that the claim of the excess payment being a mistaken refund and its subsequent recovery was not examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of evidence.
The Tribunal held that cash payments for coal purchase and freight were business necessities and should not be disallowed. Similarly, cash payments for machinery repairs due to breakdowns and for a mobile phone treated as a capital asset were also deemed not disallowable under Section 40A(3).
The Tribunal noted that the assessees sought to withdraw their appeals due to opting for the VSV scheme, and the Revenue had no objection. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal noted that the appeal had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that interest paid under Section 201(1A) for late deposit of TDS is not a business expenditure and therefore not allowable as a deduction. The payment is considered in the nature of tax and not compensatory.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unjustified as the assessee had already offered a larger sum to tax from the same business. Accepting seized material in part and rejecting it in part is not permissible.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to the moratorium granted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The dismissal was with liberty to pursue the matter after the insolvency proceedings conclude.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received Form No. 3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal pending before the Tribunal is deemed to have been withdrawn as per Section 4(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that purchases from M/s Parvati Exports were genuine as confirmed by its partner. For M/s Mukti Exports, the Tribunal found evidence of travel and accepted sales, and noted that the AO's rejection of the reply based on handwriting was not justified. The addition was deleted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 1916 allows for a reasonable quantity of jewellery for family members, which should not be added. Therefore, the AO was directed to restrict the addition based on this circular for the assessee's family members.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that provisions for liquidated damages and warranty are not deductible as they are contingent liabilities. However, advances and deposits written off in the course of business are allowable as business expenditure.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn by the assessee due to their settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the dispute was not settled as per the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unjustified as the assessee had already offered a larger sum to tax from the same business. Accepting seized material in part and rejecting it in part is not permissible.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn by the assessee due to their settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the dispute was not settled as per the scheme.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted the contents of the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to sundry creditors and job work expenses. The issue of Section 80-IC deduction was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of account solely based on cash shortages. It also found that delayed PF/ESI contributions paid before the return filing date were allowable. Additions related to seized material, sundry creditors, and out-of-book sales were deleted due to lack of evidence or misinterpretation by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were defective and bad in law for failing to specify the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that purchases from M/s Parvati Exports were genuine as confirmed by its partner. For M/s Mukti Exports, the Tribunal found evidence of travel and accepted sales, and noted that the AO's rejection of the reply based on handwriting was not justified. The addition was deleted.
The Tribunal noted the contents of the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that provisions for liquidated damages and warranty are not deductible as they are contingent liabilities. However, advances and deposits written off in the course of business are allowable as business expenditure.
The Tribunal accepted the contention that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted the contents of the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the contents of the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void and illegal because the AO failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that no satisfaction note was recorded and no notice under Section 153C was issued to the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should allow the assessee to file the appeal in electronic mode and decide the appeal on its merits, taking a lenient view.