Loading ITAT cases…
23 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is prospective and applicable only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees cannot be charged for periods prior to this date. The appeals were allowed based on this finding.
The Tribunal noted contradictions regarding the production of books of account. In the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee an opportunity to produce books of account and supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the addition for gratuity provision constituted a double addition and directed its deletion. However, it sustained the addition for delayed PF and ESI contributions, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the exact status of the assessee for claiming exemption under Section 10(26AAB) was not clear. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is prospective and applicable only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees cannot be charged for periods prior to this date. The appeals were allowed based on this finding.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is prospective and applicable only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees cannot be charged for periods prior to this date. The appeals were allowed based on this finding.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a settlement order had been passed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is prospective and applicable only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees cannot be charged for periods prior to this date. The appeals were allowed based on this finding.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is prospective and applicable only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees cannot be charged for periods prior to this date. The appeals were allowed based on this finding.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous after obtaining registration. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a settlement order had been passed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the exact status of the assessee for claiming exemption under Section 10(26AAB) was not clear. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal found that the exact status of the assessee for claiming exemption under Section 10(26AAB) was not clear. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal found that the exact status of the assessee for claiming exemption under Section 10(26AAB) was not clear. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the CIT (Exemptions). The assessee is directed to provide all relevant details and documentary evidence to substantiate its claim for registration.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the disallowance might be a double disallowance. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to verify the year-wise details of the amount and how it was suo moto disallowed by the assessee in prior years.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment proceedings themselves were quashed by a previous order, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders. While the assessee also had some fault, in the interest of substantial justice, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found it unclear if the assessee was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and if sufficient evidence was produced. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's withdrawal application and the CIT (DR)'s lack of objection. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) violated principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and not explicitly asking for the required documents. The order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT rejected the application without ensuring the assessee received the notice and without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, which violates the principles of natural justice.