Loading ITAT cases…
176 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal corrected the PAN number of the assessee from AKZPS9230E to AKZPS9320E. This correction is to be considered as part of the original order.
The Tribunal found that the deficiency pointed out by the CIT(A) had been rectified by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, meritorious consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the reopening of assessment was valid as the original assessment was processed under section 143(1) and there was prima facie material. The disallowance of depreciation and addition on commission income were also confirmed due to lack of substantiating evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to credit for the TDS deducted by the payer, even if the deductor failed to deposit it with the government. The Act does not cast a burden on the deductee for the deposit of tax retained by the payer, and the nature of the amount retained continues to be 'tax'.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding the peak credit balance of cash deposited in the bank account, as the assessee failed to explain the source of these deposits.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80HHC should be worked out on the basis of adjusted book profits under Section 115JA, not on regular income-tax profits. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's contention that a portion of the disallowed amount included employer's contribution. If correct, the disallowance should not be made for the employer's contribution.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding the peak credit balance of cash deposited in the bank account, as the assessee failed to explain the source of these deposits.
The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural lapses, particularly in the context of the nascent faceless regime, and the assessee's claim of not having access to the email. It was held that the matter should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a proper adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal directed the CIT (Exemptions) to reconsider the assessee's application for permanent registration under Section 12AB. This reconsideration should be done in accordance with the law, after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the AO's calculation was incorrect and that the disallowance should indeed be restricted to 30% of the non-deposited TDS amount. The AO was directed to re-calculate the disallowance accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form-67 is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the disallowance of foreign tax credit merely for the delay in filing Form-67 was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form-67 is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the disallowance of foreign tax credit merely for the delay in filing Form-67 was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the power for the CPC to disallow deduction under section 80P under section 143(1)(a)(v) was only conferred from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CPC for AY 2018-19 was beyond its jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s observations and findings regarding the various grounds of appeal. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence or rebut the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd., held that the Explanation inserted to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, is applicable prospectively. Therefore, the disallowance should be computed considering only investments yielding tax-exempt income.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s observations and findings regarding the various grounds of appeal. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence or rebut the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s observations and findings regarding the various grounds of appeal. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence or rebut the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s observations and findings regarding the various grounds of appeal. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence or rebut the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and lacked proper adjudication. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Delhi High Court, which held that the explanation to Section 14A is prospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee made a conscious decision not to appeal the revision order and that the current appeal was an afterthought. The delay was not due to any sufficient cause, and the assessee had already pursued an alternate remedy.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, making the Revenue's appeal infructuous. The Revenue's counsel also agreed that the appeal had become infructuous.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return and Form 10B was covered by the Supreme Court's orders extending limitation periods due to the pandemic. Therefore, the disallowance of expenses and exemption under Section 11 was incorrect.