Loading ITAT cases…
17 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the AO had made necessary inquiries and applied his mind to the issues of CER exemption and sponsorship expenses. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine as it was barred by limitation due to the unexplained delay in filing. The assessee was given liberty to seek recall of the order with proper explanation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the interest rate on unsecured loans was justified and within market rates, and that no incriminating material was found during the search to support the AO's additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the interest rate on unsecured loans was justified and within market rates, and that no incriminating material was found during the search to support the AO's additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the interest rate on unsecured loans was justified and within market rates, and that no incriminating material was found during the search to support the AO's additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the interest rate on unsecured loans was justified and within market rates, and that no incriminating material was found during the search to support the AO's additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the interest rate on unsecured loans was justified and within market rates, and that no incriminating material was found during the search to support the AO's additions.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) amounted to double addition, as the commission income was already declared and accounted for as business income. The CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal based on the wrong ITR form.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. However, since the assessee had expired and no legal representatives could be identified, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance and concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied were deleted in the quantum appeal decided in favour of the assessee, the penalty had no basis. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on factually incorrect and ill-founded reasons without proper verification by the AO. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to discharge his obligation to verify the information before initiating proceedings, rendering the reassessment invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the lockdown and the assessee's intent to pursue substantial justice. The assessee was then permitted to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee contributions to PF and ESI, if made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va). The jurisdictional High Court's decision should be followed.
The Tribunal held that contributions deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, even if delayed under respective statutes, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that contributions deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, even if delayed under respective statutes, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the rejection of books of accounts was not challenged. However, since past years' GP rates had not attained finality and comparable data was absent, the matter was remanded to the AO to determine a final average GP rate from finalized past years.