Loading ITAT cases…
99 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of entire expenses was unjustified. It applied a net profit rate of 0.6% on the contract business turnover, considering past precedents and the audited financial statements.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of entire expenses was unjustified. It applied a net profit rate of 0.6% on the contract business turnover, considering past precedents and the audited financial statements.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of entire expenses was unjustified. It applied a net profit rate of 0.6% on the contract business turnover, considering past precedents and the audited financial statements.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of entire expenses was unjustified. It applied a net profit rate of 0.6% on the contract business turnover, considering past precedents and the audited financial statements.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of entire expenses was unjustified. It applied a net profit rate of 0.6% on the contract business turnover, considering past precedents and the audited financial statements.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The demand raised for such fees was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The demand raised for such fees was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The demand raised for such fees was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The demand raised for such fees was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as the 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment was not established. The information received was a general statement from an entry provider, and the assessee's name was not specifically mentioned as a beneficiary.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The demand raised for such fees was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The demand raised for such fees was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The demand raised for such fees was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The demand raised for such fees was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the balance additional depreciation can be claimed in the subsequent assessment year. The intention of the legislation was to provide a one-time benefit, and restricting it to one year would defeat its purpose.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were applicable for the assessment year in question as the Finance Act, 2013, was enacted at the beginning of the financial year. The Tribunal also found no merit in the grounds related to unexplained cash investment due to lack of explanation and evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the lower authorities was not justified as the employee's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective in nature and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years under consideration, the deduction for belatedly paid employee contributions is allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal acknowledged an error in its previous order and corrected it by including the omitted appeal in the operative part. This ensures all captioned appeals were properly addressed in the final disposal.
The Tribunal corrected its order to include ITA No. 231/Kol/2021 for AY 2017-18 in the operative part. This ensures all captioned appeals, including the one concerning the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI/PF, are properly addressed.
The Tribunal corrected its order to include ITA No. 231/Kol/2021 for AY 2017-18 in the operative part. This ensures all captioned appeals, including the one concerning the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI/PF, are properly addressed.
The Tribunal corrected its order to include ITA No. 231/Kol/2021 for AY 2017-18 in the operative part. This ensures all captioned appeals, including the one concerning the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI/PF, are properly addressed.
The Tribunal corrected its order to include ITA No. 231/Kol/2021 for AY 2017-18 in the operative part. This ensures all captioned appeals, including the one concerning the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI/PF, are properly addressed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective in nature and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years under consideration, the deduction for belatedly paid employee contributions is allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a statutory right to be heard and that the ex parte order rendered this right illusory. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not participate in the appellate proceedings due to lack of awareness of the hearing date, which was not the assessee's fault. Therefore, the assessee should have been heard before the CIT(A) passed an order.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and fulfilled its conditions. Therefore, there was no need to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal held that the balance sheet drawn up as of March 31, 2013, was rightly used for determining the FMV of shares, as it was the balance sheet immediately preceding the valuation date. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's contention that the balance sheet needed to be approved in the AGM before the valuation date.
The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order passed without hearing the assessee renders the statutory right of appeal meaningless. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's adverse inference based on an untested third-party statement violated the principles of natural justice. The assessment was set aside to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive proper notice and thus was denied an opportunity to represent its case. Consequently, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the profit from commodity trading, recorded in 'other document' SA/1, could not be termed as 'undisclosed income' as per the definition in Section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was not leviable.
The Tribunal found that the donor and buyer had appeared before the AO during remand proceedings, substantiating the gift. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the Rs. 5,00,000/- as a gift from his wife, who was a regular income tax assessee with sufficient cash in hand as per her balance sheet. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular was intended for organized tax evasion scams involving stock market rigging, not normal share sales between private companies. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was hit by the tax effect limit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s apprehension of double exemption was based on an erroneous assumption of fact due to a mistake in the assessee's original ITR filing. The AO had not made any omission in the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(Exemption) rejecting the application was infructuous because it was passed after the Tribunal's earlier order which had already directed the grant of registration. Therefore, the subsequent order did not survive.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective in nature and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years under consideration, the deduction for belatedly paid employee contributions is allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view after examining the assessee's records and explanations regarding sundry creditors. The PCIT's interference under Section 263 was deemed unwarranted as the AO's action was not unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was wrongly registered as a duplicate appeal. It dismissed the appeal and granted the Revenue an opportunity to file a proper miscellaneous application.
The Tribunal corrected its order to include ITA No. 231/Kol/2021 for AY 2017-18 in the operative part. This ensures all captioned appeals, including the one concerning the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI/PF, are properly addressed.
The Tribunal held that if no books of accounts are maintained, penalty under Section 271B for not getting them audited is not sustainable. Penalty should be levied under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act is prospective in nature and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year in question (2019-20), the earlier position where payments made before the due date of filing the return were allowable as deduction would apply.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act is prospective in nature. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the assessee's claim for deduction, where payments were made before the due date of filing the return, should be allowed.
The Tribunal granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.