Loading ITAT cases…
65 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being pursued by the assessee. Citing various judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal deserved to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the voluntary disclosure made two months after the search did not qualify as a statement made during the search for the purpose of Section 271AAA. The assessee also failed to fulfill other conditions for immunity from penalty.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the disallowed amount. The disallowance of 48.12% of the expenditure was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the disclosure made two months after the search did not qualify as a statement made during the search for the purpose of Section 271AAA. Furthermore, the assessee failed to fulfill other conditions for immunity from penalty.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had noted that no one appeared to argue the assessee's case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision, granting the assessee an opportunity to explain their case.
The Tribunal held that given the assessee's business in a backward area and purchases from small tribal farmers, the small credits could not be considered non-genuine, especially with supporting documents like Khasra nakals and affidavits filed for many farmers. The addition on account of low household withdrawals was also deleted as the amount was deemed sufficient.
The Tribunal held that the voluntary disclosure made two months after the search did not qualify as a statement made during the search for the purpose of Section 271AAA. The assessee also failed to fulfill other conditions for immunity from penalty.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had noted that no one appeared to argue the assessee's case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision, granting the assessee an opportunity to explain their case.
The Tribunal set aside the additions related to undisclosed interest income and unexplained cash deposit back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide these issues afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the penalty on disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts was wrongly levied as the claim was based on a legal interpretation. For depreciation, the penalty was deleted subject to verification by the AO, as the issue was about delivery and use of assets.
The Tribunal held that the penalty on disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts was wrongly levied as the claim was based on a legal interpretation. For depreciation, the penalty was deleted subject to verification by the AO, as the issue was about delivery and use of assets.