Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) was cancelled, the penalty levied under Section 271C could not survive. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all information and the claim was debatable, not patently false. Therefore, following the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to EPF/ESI deposited after the due date is not allowable as a deduction, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, employer's contribution paid after the due date but before the return filing due date is allowable under Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that the employee's share of ESI/PF contributions paid after the due date is not deductible, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The employer's share, however, is eligible for deduction under Section 43B if paid within the prescribed time.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the purchases and corresponding credits. The discrepancy in the supplier's identity and the timing of payments indicated a coordinated design of fraud.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) was cancelled, the penalty levied under Section 271C could not survive. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) was cancelled, the penalty levied under Section 271C could not survive. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) was cancelled, the penalty levied under Section 271C could not survive. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) was cancelled, the penalty levied under Section 271C could not survive. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance of interest expenditure. It followed its own prior decisions and the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that the loans taken from directors and shareholders were for genuine business purposes and commercial expediency.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on its merits and was required to pass a reasoned order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that interest on bank fixed deposits cannot be considered as income derived from an industrial undertaking for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IA. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The addition was already made in the hands of the partnership firm, and it is a settled principle that the share of profit from a firm cannot be taxed again in the hands of a partner.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The expenditure was considered personal and not for business purposes, and the assessee's explanation was not found to be bonafide.
The Tribunal held that since the revision order under Section 263 was set aside by the ITAT, the consequential assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer also becomes invalid and non-est. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) cannot survive.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (VAT/GST returns) and restored the matter to the AO. The Tribunal found that these documents were crucial to determine if the assessee was engaged in business activity during the year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all information and the claim was debatable, not patently false. Therefore, following the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the loans were received in prior assessment years and not in the year under consideration. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 for the current year was not justified.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order rejecting the Section 12AB application and restored the matter for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is to decide the application in light of the subsequent order granting Section 12AA registration.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 6,65,611/- made by the lower authorities, considering it reasonable to disallow approximately 20% of the claimed expenses due to the lack of supporting documentation.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the grounds on merit as required. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to EPF/ESI deposited after the due date is not allowable as a deduction, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, employer's contribution paid after the due date but before the return filing due date is allowable under Section 43B.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the employee's contribution to PF, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. The court held that for deduction, the employee's contribution must be deposited on or before the due date specified in the respective welfare enactment.
The Tribunal held that the period of limitation for rectification should be reckoned from the date the assessee gained knowledge of the order, not from the date of passing the order. It also noted that the AO failed to provide proof of sending the intimation notice.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to ESI/PF paid after the due date is not allowable as deduction. However, employer's contribution paid after the due date but before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable under Section 43B of the Act. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to the assessee's non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for a different assessment year (AY 2008-09) involving the same assessee had already been decided in favour of the assessee, deleting the addition made in the partner's hands for a share of the firm's addition. Following this precedent, the addition for the current assessment year was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the employee's share of ESI/PF contributions paid after the due date is not deductible, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The employer's share, however, is eligible for deduction under Section 43B if paid within the prescribed time.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance of interest expenditure. It followed its own prior decisions and the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that the loans taken from directors and shareholders were for genuine business purposes and commercial expediency.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of affidavits from witnesses to the cancellation agreement and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The assessee is willing to produce these witnesses before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the payments were made on behalf of patients, with bills raised in the patients' names, and the assessee acted as a disbursement officer. Therefore, the assessee was not the person responsible for making the payment, and the provisions of Section 194J were not applicable.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee PF contribution, citing the Supreme Court judgment. However, it remanded the issue of bonus and leave encashment disallowance to the Assessing Officer for verification of payment dates.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to explain the delay and present their case, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the AO made ad-hoc disallowances without doubting the genuineness of the expenditure. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal restricted the disallowances on salary & wages for wine business to 5%, for construction business to 2%, and for telephone & vehicle expenses to 5%.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submissions regarding timely deposit, technical issues with the PF portal, and the need for further verification, restored the disputed issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence that the vehicles were used for hire. The Profit & Loss account did not show hire charges, and the fixed asset schedule did not specify hire usage.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. It held that principles of natural justice require providing one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case with evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not called for the Assessing Officer's comments on new evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that no income accrued to the non-resident in India as the plant was supplied from outside and assembled by the assessee using local contractors. Consequently, no TDS was deductible.
The Tribunal noted that the AO, in a subsequent order, had accepted the assessee's contention, rendering the appeal against the PCIT's Section 263 order academic. The assessee's counsel did not press the grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society on its investments with another cooperative society (including a cooperative bank) is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The AO and CIT(A) erred in disallowing this claim.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notice. The explanation provided was satisfactory, leading to the setting aside of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims and that the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue on merit. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the matter was restored to the AO for determination of proportionate exemption.
The Tribunal deleted the additions related to household expenses and disallowed expenses, finding them to be ad-hoc. The Tribunal restored the grounds related to LTCG to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's non-compliance might be due to reasonable cause.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had not filed a valid return of income within the time limit and that the issue of condoning the delay in filing the return and claiming a belated refund falls under Section 119(2) of the Act, which was not adequately addressed by the assessee. Therefore, the grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-appearance, but the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions. To uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that no income accrued to the non-resident in India as the plant was supplied from outside and assembled by the assessee using local contractors. Consequently, no TDS was deductible.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee resides in a remote village and might not be aware of portal notices. It found that the lower authorities were aware of the assessee's business and that cash deposits were from customers. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.