Loading ITAT cases…
605 orders · Page 12 of 13
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. It relied on co-ordinate bench decisions and High Court pronouncements that such adjustments made in the ordinary course of business, without a malafide intent to evade tax, constitute reasonable cause under Section 273B.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the jurisdictional AO to verify if the employer had deducted the TDS. If verified, credit for the TDS would be allowed irrespective of whether it was deposited in the government account.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous as the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10AA was in line with the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. The PCIT's revisional powers were not satisfied.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds related to Section 14A as not pressed. It allowed the assessee's appeal on the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) for interest income from securitization trusts, considering the trust as a pass-through entity. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal against the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench, after hearing the submissions, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Department raised no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect was indeed below Rs. 50 lacs. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on a wrong assumption of facts. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that penalty levied on additions made purely on an estimation basis is unsustainable. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal found no reason to uphold the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not strike off the irrelevant limb of the section, making it vague. Relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that such a defect vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's plea for an opportunity to submit evidence, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued for levying penalty was defective as it was a pre-printed proforma mentioning both limbs of section 271(1)(c) without striking off the irrelevant part. This vagueness vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decisions on liberal interpretation of limitation periods. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decisions on liberal interpretation of limitation periods. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the dispute. Both the assessee's representative and the revenue's representative agreed to this course of action.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decisions on liberal interpretation of limitation periods. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that while the purchases might be disputed, the entire purchase value could not be rejected if sales were accepted. The inflated benefit in the transaction needed to be addressed, not the whole purchase value.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals as infructuous and the assessee's appeals as withdrawn, given the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking section 263 as the Assessing Officer had considered the submissions and documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The assessment order was not deemed erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking section 263 as the Assessing Officer had considered the submissions and documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The assessment order was not deemed erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the penalty to 10% of the original amount, aligning it with the reduced quantum addition confirmed by the ITAT. The AO's grounds of appeal were found to be based on a misreading of the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decisions on liberal interpretation of limitation periods. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decisions on liberal interpretation of limitation periods. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 80AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the deduction under Section 80P is not admissible if the return of income is not filed by the due date specified under Section 139(1). The legislature's intent was to encourage timely filing, and the provision clearly excludes returns filed belatedly under Section 139(4).
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decisions on liberal interpretation of limitation periods. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decisions on liberal interpretation of limitation periods. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decisions on liberal interpretation of limitation periods. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format due to proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) and the moratorium declared. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to their merits.