Loading ITAT cases…
1,208 tribunal orders from the Pune bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 1,208 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) and the reassessment notice was issued after four years, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts, the reassessment proceedings were invalid. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) and the reassessment notice was issued after four years, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts, the reassessment proceedings were invalid. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.
The Tribunal held that 'Infobeans Systems Private Limited' should be excluded as a comparable due to lack of segmental details and foreign exchange earnings on FOB basis. It also directed the inclusion of 'Lucid Software Limited' and 'Evoke Technologies Private Limited' as comparables.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the application filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are independent of assessment proceedings, including those revised under Section 263. Therefore, the quashing of the Section 263 order does not automatically invalidate the penalty.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with certain information received by the CIT(A) from the AO. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the information to the assessee and giving a reasonable opportunity to rebut it.
The Tribunal held that 'Infobeans Systems Private Limited' should be excluded as a comparable due to lack of segmental details and foreign exchange earnings on FOB basis. It also directed the inclusion of 'Lucid Software Limited' and 'Evoke Technologies Private Limited' as comparables.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was reopened for a specific reason (bogus purchases) and no addition was made on that ground, no other addition could be made. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was considered invalid.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that once the books of accounts are rejected, the Assessing Officer cannot rely on them for making additions. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding scrap valuation cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not raise any grounds challenging the CIT(Appeals)'s dismissal of the appeal due to delay. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. Consequently, it should not be included in the operating revenue for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP).
The Tribunal held that once the books of accounts are rejected, the Assessing Officer cannot rely on them for making additions. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding scrap valuation cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were vitiated due to a lack of jurisdiction, as the Commissioner's order was based on a proposal from the Assessing Officer rather than the Commissioner's own examination of the records.
The Tribunal held that once the books of accounts are rejected, the Assessing Officer cannot rely on them for making additions. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding scrap valuation cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition in respect of Rainbow Reality Pvt. Ltd. was incorrect as the amount represented an opening balance from previous years, not a fresh credit in the current year. For Bhuleshwar Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found that the balance arose from regular purchase transactions accepted by the AO, making it a valid creditor.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
The tribunal held that Megri Soft Ltd. was functionally dissimilar to the assessee and directed its exclusion from the set of comparable companies. Other grounds were either not pressed or rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that once the books of accounts are rejected, the Assessing Officer cannot rely on them for making additions. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding scrap valuation cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were vitiated due to a lack of jurisdiction, as the Commissioner's order was based on a proposal from the Assessing Officer rather than the Commissioner's own examination of the records.
The Tribunal held that the entire deduction under Section 80IB(10) cannot be disallowed if a project is partially incomplete. Proportionate deduction can be allowed for eligible units, following jurisdictional High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) and the reassessment notice was issued after four years, it was invalid without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reason to be bona fide. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and evidence to the AO regarding the labour expenses and the subcontractors, including work orders, ledger extracts, and confirmations.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and evidence to the AO regarding the labour expenses and the subcontractors. The CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance was upheld as justified.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted in accordance with the provisions of the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal held that no ad hoc addition for bogus purchases is warranted. Instead, the addition should be calculated based on the difference between the gross profit rate on genuine purchases and the gross profit rate on hawala purchases.
The Tribunal held that the amount paid as service tax under VCES, even though relating to earlier years, should be allowed as a deduction in the current year of payment. This is because the service tax was included in the total income in the earlier years, and its subsequent payment qualifies for deduction.
The Tribunal held that no ad hoc addition for bogus purchases is warranted. Instead, the addition should be calculated based on the difference between the gross profit rate on genuine purchases and the gross profit rate on hawala purchases.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no ad hoc addition for bogus purchases is warranted. Instead, the addition should be calculated based on the difference between the gross profit rate on genuine purchases and the gross profit rate on hawala purchases.
The Tribunal held that the delay was reasonable due to intervening holidays and condoned it. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal found it just and fair to set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the delay was reasonable due to intervening holidays and condoned it. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay was reasonable due to intervening holidays and condoned it. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay was reasonable due to intervening holidays and that the cause of justice should be advanced. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.