Loading ITAT cases…
15 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 were not mistakes apparent from the record, as they required a long-drawn process of reasoning. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting these adjustments was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) correctly deleted the addition for advances from customers as the AO's remand report confirmed their genuineness. The Tribunal also found no merit in the Revenue's challenge to the reduced disallowance of miscellaneous expenses. However, issues regarding capital introduced and disallowances under Section 43B were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made for disallowed expenses and sundry creditors. The income was to be recomputed by applying 8% on gross contract receipts, with a reduction for income already offered.
The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal, having a tax effect below the prescribed limit, is dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limits for departmental appeals are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal reduced the net profit rate to 6% on gross receipts, considering it reasonable for civil contract business. It also deleted the addition of capital introduced by partners, finding the AO's rejection unjustified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the Department had issued Form No. 5, confirming the resolution of the dispute. Therefore, there was no need to keep the appeals pending.
The Tribunal found no merit in the contention that the Section 154 proceedings were void or that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte without proper opportunity. However, in the interest of justice, the issue regarding the validity of the remuneration and bonus claim under Section 40(b)(v) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the Department had issued Form No. 5, confirming the resolution of the dispute. Therefore, there was no need to keep the appeals pending.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020 and the Competent Authority had issued Form 5. Consequently, the Bench allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeals.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were not speaking orders as they summarily dismissed all grounds without proper adjudication. The Tribunal agreed that the applicability of Section 43D and RBI guidelines was not considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020 and the Competent Authority had issued Form 5. Consequently, the Bench allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeals.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were not speaking orders as they summarily dismissed all grounds without proper adjudication. The Tribunal agreed that the applicability of Section 43D and RBI guidelines was not considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly addressed the grounds related to the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and the disallowance of freight and carriage expenses. No new material was presented to contradict the findings.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities as the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate its claim for the unexplained cash deposits. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.