Loading ITAT cases…
165 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner cannot invoke jurisdiction under Section 263 when an appeal against the original assessment order is pending before the appellate authority. Such proceedings are barred by law.
The Tribunal held that since the foreign companies had no permanent establishment in India and their income was taxable in their respective countries as per the Double Taxation Treaty, TDS was not required to be deducted. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner cannot invoke jurisdiction under Section 263 when an appeal against the original assessment order is pending before the appellate authority. Such proceedings are barred by law.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner cannot invoke jurisdiction under Section 263 when an appeal against the original assessment order is pending before the appellate authority. Such proceedings are barred by law.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner cannot invoke jurisdiction under Section 263 when an appeal against the original assessment order is pending before the appellate authority. Such proceedings are barred by law.
The Tribunal admitted the valuation report as additional evidence. It held that the issue needed to be re-adjudicated by the CIT(A) after considering this evidence and providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal admitted the valuation report as additional evidence. It held that the issue needed to be re-adjudicated by the CIT(A) after considering this evidence and providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal admitted the valuation report as additional evidence. It held that the issue needed to be re-adjudicated by the CIT(A) after considering this evidence and providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 was not sustainable as the revenue authorities failed to conduct proper inquiries to verify the assessee's explanations regarding the source of deposits, including gifts and savings.
The Tribunal admitted the valuation report as additional evidence. It held that the issue needed to be re-adjudicated by the CIT(A) after considering this evidence and providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was not sustainable. The original assessment officer had made due inquiries and taken a plausible view, and the PCIT's order was based on a change of opinion without specifying the nature of omitted inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the show-cause notice issued by the AO did not specify the charge of default against the assessee. This was in line with the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed both grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on the statement of PTCL's director was illegal as the assessee was not afforded an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the AO had no basis to project PTCL as a paper company, noting that PTCL had business activity and the CIT(A) had considered its balance sheet and the fact that it earned interest income. The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO could neither stand on facts nor in law. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal found that the addition was made merely on the basis of the director's statement recorded during search, without any other incriminating material or evidence found. The Tribunal noted that the director's statement, as culled from the lower authorities' orders, was not with reference to the assessee-company. The CIT(A)'s findings, taking into account various factual aspects, were not seriously rebutted by the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view and dismissed the ground.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal summarily without proper adjudication due to the assessee's non-compliance. To ensure substantial justice, the ITAT remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.