Loading ITAT cases…
40 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the assessee's requests for adjournment and document submission, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to the AO's failure to provide the assessee with a copy of the 'reasons to believe' for reopening the assessment, despite a specific request. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to the AO's failure to provide the assessee with a copy of the 'reasons to believe' for reopening the assessment, despite a specific request. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report obtained by the AO was invalid as it was obtained after the assessment was completed and the reference was made without proper justification. The PCIT's revisionary order based on this report was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal decided that the reorganization of the erstwhile CSEB into separate companies falls under the definition of 'demerger'. It also held that reimbursement of administration and general expenses to the holding company was allowable. For inventory shortage and bad debts, the issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided that the reorganization of the erstwhile CSEB into separate companies falls under the definition of 'demerger'. It also held that reimbursement of administration and general expenses to the holding company was allowable. For inventory shortage and bad debts, the issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided that the reorganization of the erstwhile CSEB into separate companies falls under the definition of 'demerger'. It also held that reimbursement of administration and general expenses to the holding company was allowable. For inventory shortage and bad debts, the issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided that the reorganization of the erstwhile CSEB into separate companies falls under the definition of 'demerger'. It also held that reimbursement of administration and general expenses to the holding company was allowable. For inventory shortage and bad debts, the issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided that the reorganization of the erstwhile CSEB into separate companies falls under the definition of 'demerger'. It also held that reimbursement of administration and general expenses to the holding company was allowable. For inventory shortage and bad debts, the issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided that the reorganization of the erstwhile CSEB into separate companies falls under the definition of 'demerger'. It also held that reimbursement of administration and general expenses to the holding company was allowable. For inventory shortage and bad debts, the issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided that the reorganization of the erstwhile CSEB into separate companies falls under the definition of 'demerger'. It also held that reimbursement of administration and general expenses to the holding company was allowable. For inventory shortage and bad debts, the issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report obtained by the AO was invalid as it was obtained after the assessment was completed and the reference was made without proper justification. The PCIT's revisionary order based on this report was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal decided that the reorganization of the erstwhile CSEB into separate companies falls under the definition of 'demerger'. It also held that reimbursement of administration and general expenses to the holding company was allowable. For inventory shortage and bad debts, the issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that no penalty was leviable on the increase in book profit as it was offered in a revised return and the AO had rectified the assessment to include it. However, the penalty for delayed employee contributions was upheld based on a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that no penalty was leviable on the increase in book profit as it was offered in a revised return and the AO had subsequently rectified the assessment. However, penalty for delayed deposit of employee contributions was upheld based on a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in deleting the addition solely based on TDS deduction. The allowability of the expenditure depends on it being wholly and exclusively for business purposes as per Section 37(1), which the assessee failed to prove.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the assessee's claim for purchases and sales as genuine, given the supporting documents. However, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order regarding the valuation of closing stock.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the disallowance based on business expediency and genuineness of transactions without verifying exceptions under Rule 6DD. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The CIT(Appeals) rightly vacated the penalty, holding that offering income for taxation during reassessment proceedings, without the AO establishing concealment, does not warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal concurred with this view.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the addition for cash purchases to the AO for fresh adjudication. It also vacated the disallowance of salary expenses and partly sustained disallowances for depreciation and vehicle expenses.
The Tribunal held that the delay was not justified and was due to the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay unconvincing and lacking in bona fide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeals, amounting to negligence and carelessness, was not a sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation.