Loading ITAT cases…
20 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that a notice issued in the name of a deceased person is invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, any assessment order passed based on such a notice is also invalid and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not produce complete vouchers, the disallowances were ad-hoc. It reduced the disallowance on freight and other expenses from 5% and 10% respectively to 5% of freight and 5% of other expenses. Similarly, it reduced the disallowance on telephone and car expenses from 25% to 10%.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption u/s 10(38) was not justified as the authorities failed to provide cogent material to prove the transactions were bogus. Suspicion alone, without evidence, cannot sustain additions.
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of discount expenses, finding no justification for the revenue's action. However, it dismissed the disallowance of electricity and charity expenses due to lack of substantiation. The issue of interest expense disallowance was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT (Exemptions) rejected the assessee's application for registration ex-parte due to non-compliance.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and was issued Form No.3. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and was issued Form No.3. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s view on fresh claims before appellate authorities, referencing the Allahabad High Court's decision. However, as the mutuality issue was not adjudicated by the AO, the matter was remitted back for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that there is no statutory obligation on legal heirs to intimate the death of an assessee to the department. Therefore, an appeal filed against a deceased person is not maintainable.
The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s view on fresh claims before appellate authorities, referencing the Allahabad High Court's decision. However, as the mutuality issue was not adjudicated by the AO, the matter was remitted back for readjudication.
The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s view on fresh claims before appellate authorities, referencing the Allahabad High Court's decision. However, as the mutuality issue was not adjudicated by the AO, the matter was remitted back for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and deposited the tax. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had obtained certificates under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had obtained certificates under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.