Loading ITAT cases…
36 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal partly allowed the appeal by reducing the disallowance on carriage inwards to ₹5 lac. For the TDS issue on rent, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for factual verification regarding the payee's assessment.
The Tribunal reduced the estimated gross profit rate from 8% to 7.5% due to the lack of comparative analysis by the lower authorities. This reduction was made in the interest of justice and not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the disallowance on purchases to Rs. 3,00,000/- and miscellaneous expenses to Rs. 50,000/-. The assessee did not press the ground regarding VAT penalty.
The Tribunal held that the salary paid to the employed advocate was not a professional service requiring TDS deduction under Section 194J. It also reduced the ad hoc disallowance to ₹1 lac, stating it should not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory for framing a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). Since the notice was issued by an officer without territorial jurisdiction, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) as the payees did not undertake any contractual liability. The issue of disallowance under Section 40A(3) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that neither lower authority conducted a comparative analysis of profit rates in earlier or later years. While the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence for book results, the Tribunal reduced the estimated gross profit rate from 8% to 7.5% to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record a valid satisfaction that the seized materials belonged to the assessee, as stipulated by the unamended Section 153C. Therefore, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were quashed.