Loading ITAT cases…
65 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that since CPRI and ERDA are autonomous societies entitled to exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act, there is no taxability on their income. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held in default for not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that since CPRI and ERDA are autonomous societies entitled to exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act, there is no taxability on their income. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held in default for not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that since CPRI and ERDA are exempt from tax under Section 10(21) of the Act, the assessee cannot be treated as a defaulter for not deducting TDS. Therefore, the demand for TDS and interest was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and did not decide the appeal on merit. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the issue of exempt income and its nexus with expenditure under Section 14A was not properly demonstrated by the assessee. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that since CPRI and ERDA are autonomous societies entitled to exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act, they are not liable to tax. Therefore, the assessee, as a deductor, cannot be held in default for not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that since CPRI and ERDA are autonomous societies entitled to exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act, they are not liable to tax. Therefore, the assessee (deductor) cannot be considered in default for not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that since CPRI and ERDA are autonomous societies entitled to exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act, they have no taxable income. Therefore, the assessee (deductor) cannot be considered in default for not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that since CPRI and ERDA are autonomous societies entitled to exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act, there is no taxability on their income. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held in default for not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that merely claiming expenses that are not allowable in law, when all facts are disclosed, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The penalty was deleted as the disallowance was based on the capitalization of expenses due to no sales, not on any concealment.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned based on the Supreme Court's directions regarding limitation extension during the pandemic. On merits, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, upholding the addition made for delayed deposit of employee's PF and ESI contributions.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the late payments of employees' contribution to ESI and PF is justified. This is because the Supreme Court in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case has settled that such payments must be made on or before the due date prescribed by the respective Acts to be allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation reasonable. On merits, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were not sustainable because the assessment order and the show-cause notice did not specify the exact charge against the assessee, either for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This was in line with the jurisdictional High Court's decision.