Loading ITAT cases…
75 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found it appropriate to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case. Citing a co-ordinate bench's decision on an identical issue, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's argument that submissions were made and set aside the NFAC's order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision based on the uploaded submissions.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries regarding the increase in closing stock. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the assessee no longer wished to pursue it after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision for the assessee to file a recall application if their scheme application is subsequently rejected.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits, considering the Covid-19 pandemic period and the assessee being a society. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that employee's contributions to PF paid after the due date under PF laws but within the time allowed under Section 43B (i.e., by the due date for filing the return of income) are allowable as a deduction. The recent amendments via Finance Act, 2021 were held to be prospective.
The tribunal noted that the revised order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 has been passed, and the income determined is the same as in the original assessment order. Therefore, the purpose of the appeal has been fulfilled.
The Tribunal held that since the original appeal was settled under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) to grant the assessee a further opportunity to present her case and evidence. The AO is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order.
The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and the lack of a delay condonation application. Consequently, it was presumed that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of sales commission disallowance, finding the issue covered by previous ITAT and High Court decisions. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance of interest expenses on loans from relatives, finding the AO failed to prove the expenditure was excessive or unreasonable as per Section 40A(2).
The Tribunal held that the AO's original order pertained to Section 194H, not Section 194J (applicable to roaming charges). It also noted that the department had previously inquired into roaming charges and found no TDS liability, and that the CIT failed to consider this. Therefore, the revision order was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeals as the assessee intended to pursue the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the original assessment order was passed after due verification and exhaustive inquiry, and the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal found that the AO had taken a possible view, which could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessment could not be reopened merely on a change of opinion, especially when the original assessment was completed after due verification and the assessee had provided corroborative evidence. The deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the matter to the DVO under Section 142A without rejecting the assessee's books of account, as per Supreme Court precedent. It also found that the assessee had provided evidence of TDS compliance and proper documentation for labour charges.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the matter to the DVO under Section 142A without rejecting the assessee's books of account, as per Supreme Court precedent. It also found that the assessee had provided evidence of TDS compliance and proper documentation for labour charges.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and 271AAB are intrinsically linked to the sustenance of additions. Since the additions were largely deleted or set aside, the penalties imposed on those amounts could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and 271AAB are intrinsically linked to the sustenance of additions. Since the additions were largely deleted or set aside, the penalties imposed on those amounts could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and 271AAB are intrinsically linked to the sustenance of additions. Since the additions were largely deleted or set aside, the penalties imposed on those amounts could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the identity of the purchaser company was established, the transaction was through banking channels, and the purchaser had confirmed the transaction. The Tribunal found no justification for the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the share premium was not satisfactory. The issue of treating the premium as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(viib) was to be further examined.