Loading ITAT cases…
66 orders · Page 1 of 2
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 permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 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 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 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.
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 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 CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal in limine. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal, considering that the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer in a related matter for de-novo adjudication with additional evidence, decided to remand the present appeals as well. This was done in the interest of justice for a fresh consideration of the issue.
The Tribunal, considering that the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer in a related matter for de-novo adjudication with additional evidence, decided to remand the present appeals as well. This was done in the interest of justice for a fresh consideration of the issue.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh disposal. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ITAT 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, following its own precedent in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and also accepted the reasons for the assessee's non-appearance. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and also accepted the reasons for non-appearance. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remitted back for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal, considering that the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer in a related matter for de-novo adjudication with additional evidence, decided to remand the present appeals as well. This was done in the interest of justice for a fresh consideration of the issue.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. No objection was raised by the Revenue.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that previous orders of the Tribunal had restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) and restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred for earning income from other sources should be fully allowed as deductions. The CIT(A)'s decision to restrict deductions to 50% was found to be illogical as the expenses were directly related to earning the commission income.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. It followed a previous decision for the assessment year 2012-13, where similar facts led to the acceptance of the 80IC deduction.
The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits are applicable to all pending appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not entertained.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 81,00,398/- as unexplained cash credit, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the loan despite opportunities. The authorities below correctly inferred the loan was bogus.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the pandemic situation and, in the interest of justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was deemed to have been withdrawn as per the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal held that the delay in granting approval by the Principal CIT, which was not attributable to the assessee, should not deny the deduction. The deduction under Section 36(1)(v) was allowed, considering the principle of consistency and the fact that the application was made in time.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of reopening of assessment. However, it reduced the disallowance of purchases from 25% to 10%, following jurisdictional High Court precedents on taxing the profit element in such consumed bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions, finding that the amount withheld from the running bill was correctly included in work-in-progress. The additions related to work-in-progress and Section 40A(3) violations were also deleted as the AO's basis was flawed.
The Tribunal held that the delay in granting approval by the Principal CIT, which was not attributable to the assessee, should not deny the deduction. The deduction under Section 36(1)(v) was allowed, considering the principle of consistency and the fact that the application was made in time.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable only when there is exempt income. Since the assessee had not earned any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal granted the permission for withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D should be calculated considering only investments that yielded exempt income. It also directed that the Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid are allowable deductions.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue based on CBDT Circulars that prescribe monetary limits for filing appeals. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the enhanced limit of Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte on merits. Considering the circumstances and the revenue's lack of objection, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order passed by 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 allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the absence of any objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions, finding that the amount withheld from the running bill was correctly included in work-in-progress. The additions related to work-in-progress and Section 40A(3) violations were also deleted as the AO's basis was flawed.