Loading ITAT cases…
12 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for departmental appeals, as per CBDT circulars, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd., held that deduction for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF cannot be claimed even if deposited before the return filing due date.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the AO failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a delayed return in response to the Section 148 notice. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the AO failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a delayed return in response to the Section 148 notice. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing. It found no sufficient cause or irreparable loss to justify fixing the appeals out of turn, directing them to be heard in due course.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing. It found no sufficient cause or irreparable loss to justify fixing the appeals out of turn, directing them to be heard in due course.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing. It found no sufficient cause or irreparable loss to justify fixing the appeals out of turn, directing them to be heard in due course.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing. It found no sufficient cause or irreparable loss to justify fixing the appeals out of turn, directing them to be heard in due course.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It noted that the transporters had declared the receipts as their turnover, and the assessee had obtained PAN copies and declaration letters. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions that non-furnishing of prescribed information does not automatically lead to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) if other conditions are met.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing. It found no sufficient cause or irreparable loss to justify fixing the appeals out of turn, directing them to be heard in due course.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing, stating that the grounds provided were not sufficient to warrant breaking the queue of pending appeals. The appeal was directed to be heard in its normal turn.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing. It found no sufficient cause or irreparable loss to justify fixing the appeals out of turn, directing them to be heard in due course.