Loading ITAT cases…
26 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the special audit direction. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the special audit direction. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the special audit direction. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the special audit direction. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the special audit direction. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the special audit direction. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the special audit direction. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impounding of books of account by the Assessing Officer constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the special audit directions. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence including confirmations, bank statements, and audited accounts of the lender. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted as the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction were established.
The Tribunal held that the amounts in question were purchases of trade items and not expenses. Since no TDS is deductible on purchases, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee admitted the gross receipts from Indian Oil Corporation but failed to explain the cash and cheque deposits. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the deposits and assess contract receipts based on profit.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of late payment of employee's PF contribution is generally decided against the assessee. However, since the assessee had already made a disallowance in its accounts and claimed a higher amount, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the amount already disallowed by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted comprehensive details regarding agricultural income, landholdings, crops, sales, and expenses to the AO. The PCIT's revision order lacked specific findings on how the assessment order was erroneous or what further inquiries the AO should have conducted.