Loading ITAT cases…
40 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of accounts and the alleged sum was offered to tax by reducing expenses, sustaining the addition would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search, additions cannot be made under section 153A for completed assessments. The inquiry about the loan creditors was not considered incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is applicable, disallowing delayed PF/ESI contributions. However, the issue of exempt income on sale of green leaves was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO's penalty order was invalid because it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income. The AO's action was considered casual and lacking application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the AO's penalty order was invalid because it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income. The AO's action was considered casual and lacking application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the AO's penalty order was invalid because it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income. The AO's action was considered casual and lacking application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not entertaining the additional evidence and not providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO's penalty order was invalid because it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income. The AO's action was considered casual and lacking application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF, even if made before the return filing due date, is not deductible. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF, even if made before the return filing due date, is not deductible. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF, even if made before the return filing due date, is not deductible. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF, even if made before the return filing due date, is not deductible. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF, even if made before the return filing due date, is not deductible. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF, even if made before the return filing due date, is not deductible. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF, even if made before the return filing due date, is not deductible. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF, even if made before the return filing due date, is not deductible. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that since the cash belonged to the company and had already been taxed in its hands, the addition in the assessee's hands was uncalled for. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine the claim of deduction under Section 80IE, allowing the assessee to furnish a revised audit report and granting an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the appeal against the section 143(1) intimation became infructuous as it merged into the subsequent assessment orders. Since the assessment order under section 153A was pending before the CIT(A), the appeal against the 143(1) intimation was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that making the disallowance twice was not justified. It further ruled that depreciation on investments categorized as 'Available for Sale' (AFS) is allowable as per CBDT instructions, considering the assessee's nature as a cooperative urban bank.
The Tribunal held that since the payees were exempt from tax under Section 10(26), the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessee could not be treated as an 'assessee in default'.
The Tribunal held that since the payees were exempt from tax under Section 10(26), the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessee could not be treated as an 'assessee in default'.
The Tribunal held that if the payee is exempt from tax, the payer cannot be fastened with the liability to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as an 'assessee in default'.
The Tribunal held that since the payees were exempt from tax under Section 10(26), the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the assessee could not be treated as an 'assessee in default'.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of errors in the Tax Audit Report regarding payment dates. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of actual payment dates with challans.
The Tribunal held that if the primary reason for reopening the assessment (unexplained cash deposits) is found to be not escaped income by the AO and no addition is made on that basis, then the reassessment order is invalid. Consequently, an invalid assessment order cannot be a subject matter for revision under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the appeal against the section 143(1) intimation was rendered infructuous because the subsequent section 143(3) assessment order, which incorporated the same adjustment, merged the earlier intimation. Therefore, the appeal against the 143(1) order no longer had independent existence.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee to accept cash loans due to time constraints in completing the property purchase. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court precedent, the Tribunal found the transactions to be genuine and deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, was set aside by the Coordinate Bench, the penalty order became infructuous. A de novo assessment was subsequently completed.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the case did not fall under any exception clause as there was no challenge to constitutional validity or any Board's order being held illegal. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the case did not fall within the exception clause as neither the constitutional validity of any provision was challenged nor any Board's order was held illegal. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte and before the scheduled hearing date. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive notices from the CIT(A) and that the assessment order was also ex parte. To serve the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The court held that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI, even if made before the return filing due date, is not deductible under Section 36(1)(va).
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI cannot be claimed, even if deposited before the due date of filing the return. This is because such amounts are considered income under Section 2(24)(x) unless deposited by the due date stipulated in Section 36(1)(va).
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' PF/ESI contribution is not allowable, even if deposited before the return filing due date. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was followed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer/CPC under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is valid. This decision follows the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer/CPC under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is valid. This decision follows the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.