Loading ITAT cases…
474 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee for buying agency services were purely procurement services and not technical, managerial, or consultancy services. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not warranted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn based on the assessee's letter.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee failed to provide evidence to controvert the rental income addition and explain the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum additions, which formed the basis of the penalty, had been remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. Therefore, the penalty appeal was also remanded for a fresh decision after considering the outcome of the fresh assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings which were based on earlier assessment years' decisions.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind to the details furnished by the assessee and that the assessment order was not erroneous. It also found that the PCIT's notice under Section 263 was general and lacked specific reasons, and that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, following various High Court judgments. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered not applicable retrospectively for the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits and that the assessee had not adequately explained the source of the cash deposit. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, following various High Court judgments. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered not applicable retrospectively for the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and this applied to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings which were based on earlier assessment years' decisions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings which were based on earlier assessment years' decisions.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the cash transactions due to business exigencies and the nature of his business. The penalty imposed for violating Sections 269SS and 269T was considered a technical breach, and mitigating circumstances existed.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, even if paid after the statutory due date. This position is supported by various High Court judgments and the Supreme Court's decision in Vinay Cement.
The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and the jurisdictional issue, decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. This was done to ensure a just decision and afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, even if paid after the statutory due date. This position is based on various High Court judgments and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, following various High Court judgments. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, even if paid after the statutory due date. This position was based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contentions and recalled its earlier order. The appeal was then fixed for hearing. Separately, another appeal by the Revenue was dismissed as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that no addition was made on the primary issue for which the assessment was reopened. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs Lark Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., the addition made on a different ground is unsustainable.
The Tribunal recalled its previous order, acknowledging the Revenue's arguments regarding the need to examine seized documents and the collaboration agreement. Subsequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for departmental appeals.