Loading ITAT cases…
117 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) did not provide specific material to substantiate the rejection. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10. In that order, it was found that the assessee manufactured products as per third-party specifications using its own raw materials and sold the finished goods, qualifying for the deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that commission paid to DD agents was not subject to TDS as it was akin to wages, and that the staff incentive was an actual expenditure paid within the relevant period. The department's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) did not provide specific material to substantiate the rejection. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the Revenue should not have filed an appeal with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the increase in expenses was justified by the corresponding increase in turnover and profits, and that cash payments were inevitable given the nature of the business. Therefore, the ad-hoc disallowance was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the order. The CIT(Appeals) had directed the AO to examine the source of funds in the hands of parties who provided advances, which was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10. In that order, it was found that the assessee manufactured products as per third-party specifications using its own raw materials and sold the finished goods, qualifying for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding instructions from the CBDT. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that commission paid to DD agents was not subject to TDS as it was akin to wages, and that the staff incentive was an actual expenditure paid within the relevant period. The department's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10. In that order, it was found that the assessee manufactured products as per third-party specifications using its own raw materials and sold the finished goods, qualifying for the deduction.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s order was unclear regarding the hearing date and whether notice was served. Citing the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided loan confirmations, bank statements, and PAN of the depositors, and the AO did not ask for the production of the depositors. Since the entries were reflected in the books and the depositors had sufficient bank balances, the addition was deleted.