Loading ITAT cases…
141 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that PACS were acting as agents of the State Government and thus, commission paid was liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, due to procedural lapses and incorrect calculation of commission and TDS by the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view based on available material by accepting the excess stock as business income. The PCIT's differing opinion did not automatically render the assessment order erroneous. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in setting aside the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that the estimated profit rate was higher than in previous years and that the revenue had not suffered any loss. The Tribunal also found that the PCIT failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice to the revenue.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT was not justified in quashing the assessment order. The estimation of income at 8% of gross receipts was considered reasonable and not prejudicial to the revenue, especially when compared to previous years.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in setting aside the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that the estimated profit rate was higher than in previous years and that the PCIT failed to demonstrate any prejudice to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked tangible material and proper application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. The reopening was based on mere suspicion and third-party information without confronting the assessee or establishing a direct nexus.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) as the Assessing Officer did not demonstrate actual defaults. The Tribunal also held that specific disallowances on expenses like salary should not be made additionally when the entire income is estimated after rejecting books of account.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and granted the assessee one more opportunity to submit all required details. The CIT was directed to reconsider the application on its merits.
The Tribunal held that as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Limited, if employee contributions to PF & ESI are not paid within the due dates, the assessee is not entitled to any deduction. Therefore, the assessee's grounds of appeal were rejected.
The Tribunal held that rental income from a commercial asset used for business purposes is business income, following Supreme Court precedents. It also upheld the deletion of estimated profit as the AO lacked material evidence for the addition.