ITAT Panaji Judgments — August 2023

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to submit the necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the legal ground raised by the assessee was admissible as it challenged the validity of the order and did not require new facts. The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were issued in violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 as they lacked the mandatory DIN, rendering them invalid.

The Tribunal noted that the purpose of the appeal was solved and granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the previous directions of the Tribunal. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and remanded the matter back, directing the NFAC to adjudicate the appeal on merits after granting one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the legal ground raised by the assessee was admissible as it challenged the validity of the order and did not require new facts. The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were issued in violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 as they lacked the mandatory DIN, rendering them invalid.

The Tribunal held that the legal ground raised by the assessee was admissible as it challenged the validity of the order and did not require new facts. The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were issued in violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 as they lacked the mandatory DIN, rendering them invalid.

The Tribunal held that the legal ground raised by the assessee was admissible as it challenged the validity of the order and did not require new facts. The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were issued in violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 as they lacked the mandatory DIN, rendering them invalid.

The Tribunal held that the legal ground raised by the assessee was admissible as it challenged the validity of the order and did not require new facts. The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were issued in violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 as they lacked the mandatory DIN, rendering them invalid.

The Tribunal held that the legal ground raised by the assessee was admissible as it challenged the validity of the order and did not require new facts. The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were issued in violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 as they lacked the mandatory DIN, rendering them invalid.

The Tribunal held that the legal ground raised by the assessee was admissible as it challenged the validity of the order and did not require new facts. The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were issued in violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 as they lacked the mandatory DIN, rendering them invalid.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) was covered by earlier judicial precedents in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interests, and the revision order was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) was covered by earlier judicial precedents in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interests, and the revision order was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) was covered by earlier judicial precedents in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interests, and the revision order was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) was covered by earlier judicial precedents in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interests, and the revision order was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders, communicated without a DIN after the stipulated date, were invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders, communicated without a DIN after the stipulated date, were invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the omission to quote DIN in the impugned order renders the communication invalid, as if it was never issued. The Revenue failed to provide evidence for exceptional circumstances or regularization as per the circular.

The Tribunal held that the omission to quote DIN in the impugned order renders the communication invalid, as if it was never issued. The Revenue failed to provide evidence for exceptional circumstances or regularization as per the circular.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty due to a defective show cause notice. The assessee's appeal for deduction of cess was dismissed based on a retrospective legislative amendment.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty due to a defective show cause notice. The assessee's appeal for deduction of cess was dismissed based on a retrospective legislative amendment.

The Tribunal held that the omission to quote DIN in the impugned order renders the communication invalid, as if it was never issued. The Revenue failed to provide evidence for exceptional circumstances or regularization as per the circular.

The Tribunal held that the omission to quote DIN in the impugned order renders the communication invalid, as if it was never issued. The Revenue failed to provide evidence for exceptional circumstances or regularization as per the circular.

The Tribunal held that the omission to quote DIN in the impugned order renders the communication invalid, as if it was never issued. The Revenue failed to provide evidence for exceptional circumstances or regularization as per the circular.

The Tribunal held that the omission to quote DIN in the impugned order renders the communication invalid, as if it was never issued. The Revenue failed to provide evidence for exceptional circumstances or regularization as per the circular.

The Tribunal held that the omission to quote DIN in the impugned order renders the communication invalid, as if it was never issued. The Revenue failed to provide evidence for exceptional circumstances or regularization as per the circular.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment for AY 2006-2007 was invalid as it was framed without issuing a mandatory Section 143(2) notice. For AY 2009-2010, the reopening was quashed due to vague reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. The Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's turnover and profit declared in the books of account, making the addition of sundry creditors contradictory.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment for AY 2006-2007 was invalid as it was framed without issuing a mandatory Section 143(2) notice. For AY 2009-2010, the reopening was quashed due to vague reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI not deposited by the due dates, citing the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. The Tribunal also found no merit in the argument that the disallowance could not be made under section 143(1)(a).

The Tribunal held that the sums received by the assessee firm from KCPL were in the nature of capital contribution and not loans or advances. Therefore, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI, even if made before the due date of filing the return, is justified. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in 'Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors Vs CIT & Ors'.

The assessee's representative filed withdrawal applications for all appeals. The departmental representative had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal applications.

The assessee's representative filed withdrawal applications for all appeals. The departmental representative had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal applications.

The assessee's representative filed withdrawal applications for all appeals. The departmental representative had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal applications.

The assessee's representative filed withdrawal applications for all appeals. The departmental representative had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal applications.

The assessee's representative filed withdrawal applications for all appeals. The departmental representative had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal applications.

The assessee's representative filed withdrawal applications for all appeals. The departmental representative had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal applications.

The assessee's representative filed withdrawal applications for all appeals. The departmental representative had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal applications.