Loading ITAT cases…
14 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the services rendered, including loading, unloading, and door delivery, were part of the transportation contract and not separate services attracting TDS under Section 194C(1). The conditions of Section 194C(6) were met.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction and did not specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) while initiating and levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) had found that the assessee had correctly adopted the market value for electricity consumption and that there was no evidence to support the disallowance of expenses for earning dividend income.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous. The receipts were found to be inextricably linked to the hospital's operation and maintenance.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered, including loading, unloading, and door delivery, were part of the transportation contract and not separate services attracting TDS under Section 194C(1). The conditions of Section 194C(6) were met.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered, including loading, unloading, and door delivery, were part of the transportation contract and not separate services attracting TDS under Section 194C(1). The conditions of Section 194C(6) were met.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered, including loading, unloading, and door delivery, were part of the transportation contract and not separate services attracting TDS under Section 194C(1). The conditions of Section 194C(6) were met.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) had found that the assessee had correctly adopted the market value for electricity consumption and that there was no evidence to support the disallowance of expenses for earning dividend income.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered, including loading, unloading, and door delivery, were part of the transportation contract and not separate services attracting TDS under Section 194C(1). The conditions of Section 194C(6) were met.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered, including loading, unloading, and door delivery, were part of the transportation contract and not separate services attracting TDS under Section 194C(1). The conditions of Section 194C(6) were met.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was unsustainable because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the assessee before completion of the reassessment. Consequently, the additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were ad-hoc and based on suspicion, without proper evidence. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning exemption under Section 11 had been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years, following the decisions of the Bombay High Court and coordinate benches. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-attendance before the CIT(A) due to a communication gap. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.