Loading ITAT cases…
75 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which disallows depreciation on assets treated as application of income, is prospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to its effective date, depreciation can be claimed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus under Section 68 by establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The Tribunal relied on previous ITAT decisions and Supreme Court judgments, stating that additions cannot be made solely on statements without allowing cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which disallows depreciation on assets treated as application of income, is prospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to its effective date, depreciation can be claimed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which disallows depreciation on assets treated as application of income, is prospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to its effective date, depreciation can be claimed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the assessee being a government department requiring administrative and financial approvals. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the TDS liability after considering the arguments regarding the nature of EDCs and the applicability of various CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal held that cash advances given to various persons do not constitute undisclosed income as defined in section 271AAB(1A) of the Act. The deeming fiction under sections 69 and 69B cannot be automatically extended to penalty proceedings under section 271AAB.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the assessee being a government department requiring administrative and financial approvals. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the TDS liability after considering the arguments regarding the nature of EDCs and the applicability of various CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the revenue's appeals. On merits, the Tribunal found that the payments to EDCs/VFPMCs were not contract payments under Section 194C. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-deduction and that the issue was debatable, thus deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the revenue's appeals. On merits, the Tribunal found that the payments to EDCs/VFPMCs were not contract payments under Section 194C. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-deduction and that the issue was debatable, thus deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the assessee being a government department requiring administrative and financial approvals. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the TDS liability after considering the arguments regarding the nature of EDCs and the applicability of various CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the assessee being a government department requiring administrative and financial approvals. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the TDS liability after considering the arguments regarding the nature of EDCs and the applicability of various CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of ESI/PF contributions not paid by the due date is correct, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, service tax disallowed under section 43B was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of ESI/PF contributions not paid by the due date is correct, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, service tax disallowed under section 43B was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the assessee being a government department requiring administrative and financial approvals. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the TDS liability after considering the arguments regarding the nature of EDCs and the applicability of various CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's status as a government department requiring procedural approvals. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the TDS liability after considering the arguments regarding the nature of EDCs and the applicability of various CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's status as a government department requiring procedural approvals. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the TDS liability after considering the arguments regarding the nature of EDCs and the applicability of various CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's status as a government department requiring administrative approvals. On merits, the Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not properly examined the nature of payments to EDCs and the applicability of TDS provisions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the revenue's appeals. On merits, the Tribunal found that the payments to EDCs/VFPMCs were not contract payments under Section 194C. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-deduction and that the issue was debatable, thus deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's husband had accepted the income and filed a settlement application, the addition made in the assessee's hands should be deleted upon the final order of the ITSC. The matter was restored to the AO with this direction.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's husband had accepted the income and filed a settlement application, the addition made in the assessee's hands should be deleted upon the final order of the ITSC. The matter was restored to the AO with this direction.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB(1), affirming that the disclosure of undisclosed income during search proceedings makes the penalty automatic. The assessee's contention that the cash was not undisclosed income was rejected.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB(1), affirming that the disclosure of undisclosed income during search proceedings makes the penalty automatic. The assessee's contention that the cash was not undisclosed income was rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the defects pointed out by the CIT(E) were curable and the assessee had applied for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to cure the defects.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s conclusion was not fully supported by facts and that the defects pointed out were curable. It noted that the assessee had past registration under Section 80G and continued to hold registration under Section 12A/12AB.
The Tribunal noted that the defects pointed out by the CIT(E) were curable and the assessee had applied for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more chance to present their case before the CIT(E).