Loading ITAT cases…
34 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not appear, the penalty should be restricted to the first default, not levied for each notice. The CIT(A) had failed to consider the assessee's explanation for non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P by the CPC was not a prima facie adjustment permissible under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for the assessment year in question. The specific provision for disallowance due to late filing under Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not in force during the relevant period.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the Section 80P deduction by the CPC was not a permissible prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) as the delay in filing the return did not make the claim 'incorrect' in that context. Furthermore, Section 143(1)(a)(v), which specifically addresses disallowances for late filing, was not in force during the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer as the assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence regarding the cash deposit. The assessee also did not appear or file any submissions before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not analyzed the peak cash balance working submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh analysis and decision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) took a possible view in allowing the deduction, and in cases where two views are possible, the AO's order cannot be deemed erroneous if it is sustainable in law. The revisional order of the Principal CIT was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) took a possible view in allowing the deduction, and in cases where two views are possible, the AO's order cannot be deemed erroneous if it is sustainable in law. The revisional order of the Principal CIT was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the failure to upload the audit report was a technical default, not a deliberate violation, and there was no malafide intention or loss of revenue. Therefore, the penalty imposed was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the failure to upload the audit report was a technical default, not a deliberate violation, and there was no malafide intention or loss of revenue. Therefore, the penalty imposed was not justified.
The assessee informed the tribunal that they were no longer aggrieved by the original order and wished to withdraw the appeal. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable as there was no cessation of trading liability and the assessee continued to show the liability in its balance sheet. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they were no longer aggrieved by the PCIT's order. The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the genuine difficulties faced by the assessee. On merits, the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 36(1)(va) specifically applies to the deposit of employees' contribution. The addition of employer's share and administrative charges, which were not deposited within the due date, was not in accordance with the statutory provisions.
The Tribunal held that the amounts represented opening balances or trade creditors, which cannot be added under Section 68 of the Act. The Principal CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order as the assessee had discharged the initial onus and provided sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) took a possible view in allowing the deduction, and in cases where two views are possible, the AO's order cannot be deemed erroneous if it is sustainable in law. The revisional order of the Principal CIT was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the failure to upload the audit report was a technical default, not a deliberate violation, and there was no malafide intention or loss of revenue. Therefore, the penalty imposed was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's power under Section 263 cannot be used to reopen scrutiny on a different issue than what was initially selected. The PCIT's order was found to be without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) as the addition on account of unexplained unsecured loan was sustained by the Tribunal. The assessee's contention regarding a pending rectification application was found to be frivolous.
The Tribunal held that the payments made for operation and maintenance of windmills were in the nature of works contract and covered under Section 194C, not Section 194J. Therefore, the assessee was not in default for deducting TDS under Section 194C.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified. Relying on various judicial precedents, it was decided that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of presumption or perceived market conditions without concrete evidence of undisclosed investment.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to file a reply and present evidence, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to cooperate for a speedy disposal.
The Tribunal upheld the Principal CIT's order, finding that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54B. The Tribunal agreed that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order without considering the detailed submissions made by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the payments made for operation and maintenance of windmills were in the nature of works contract and covered under Section 194C, not Section 194J. Therefore, the assessee was not in default for deducting TDS under Section 194C.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was hit by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which revises monetary limits for filing appeals. The assessee did not want to press their cross-objection.
The Tribunal held that opting for the VSV Scheme and its finalization amounts to a closure of disputes. Matters covered by the VSV order cannot be reopened under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act was not applicable as the assessee's turnover exceeded the limit and the business was wholesale, not retail. However, the AO's estimation of 8% was also not justified. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition at 4% of the total bank deposits.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A were beyond its scope as assessments for the years in question had become final before the search, and no incriminating material was found. The assessment orders were also found to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that since the entire agricultural land was purchased as one lot and the difference between the declared value and the DVO's valuation was less than 5% of the total transaction value, the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A were beyond its scope as assessments for the years in question had become final before the search, and no incriminating material was found. The assessment orders were also found to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that since the entire agricultural land was purchased as one lot and the difference between the declared value and the DVO's valuation was less than 5% of the total transaction value, the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not warranted.