Loading ITAT cases…
69 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of 20% of miscellaneous expenses, finding it to be an ad-hoc disallowance without proper examination of documents. For additions based on Form 26AS, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The assessee provided explanations which the PCIT did not properly consider, leading to a mechanical invocation of revisional jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA as it was engaged in developing infrastructure facilities, not just contract work. For Section 80IB, the Tribunal found the hot mix plant activity to be manufacturing, citing Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that ad hoc disallowance of expenses without rejecting the books of account or invoking Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act is arbitrary and without legal sanction. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's reasoning for personal expenditure was flawed as the assessee is a company.
The Tribunal found per-se contradictions in the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the rejection of books of accounts. The CIT(A) wrongly assumed that the assessee had not produced books and documents, despite the AO noting their production and the CIT(A) himself relying on the cash book.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and legal issues. The ex-parte order was set aside due to the lack of proper adjudication and potential issues with notice service.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA as it was engaged in developing infrastructure facilities, not just contract work. For Section 80IB, the Tribunal found the hot mix plant activity to be manufacturing, citing Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the CIT wrongly exercised revisionary jurisdiction as the discrepancies pointed out were minor and related to small improvement expenses, against substantial total investments. The Tribunal found no major discrepancies after examining the details and restored the Assessing Officer's order.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The assessee provided explanations which the PCIT did not properly consider, leading to a mechanical invocation of revisional jurisdiction.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to provide a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was duly complied with by the assessee.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The assessee expressed a desire to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.