Loading ITAT cases…
69 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals regarding the estimation rate and allowed the assessee's cross-appeals partly by upholding depreciation on crates and remitting the issue of interest on crates to the AO. Revenue's appeal on tax effect was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction required to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the assessee before issuing notice under Section 153C was not properly recorded or was unsigned. Consequently, the notice and the assessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the admission of on-money payment by both the vendor and vendee, even with subsequent retraction, constitutes concealment of income. However, the penalty was upheld only on the portion of income confirmed by the ITAT, not the entire amount enhanced by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as it became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable. The Department did not object to this.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable. The Department did not object to this.
The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employee and employer contributions to PF. If the total contribution is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was obligated to adjudicate the appeal on merits and should not have passed an ex-parte order without considering the case's merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was obligated to adjudicate the appeal on merits rather than passing an ex-parte order. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 10CCB during the assessment proceedings, before the final order, constitutes substantial compliance and the deduction is allowable. The requirement to file it with the return is directory, not mandatory.
The Tribunal held that the AO had examined the issues during the original assessment and found no understatement of income or loss to the revenue. Therefore, the CIT's revision order was quashed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction required to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the assessee before issuing notice under Section 153C was not properly recorded or was unsigned. Consequently, the notice and the assessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The tribunal dismissed the additional ground regarding non-communication of reasons for reopening as it involved factual verification not previously raised. It upheld the disallowance of interest expenses, stating that a hybrid accounting system (cash for receipts, mercantile for payments) is not permitted under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act.
The tribunal dismissed the additional ground regarding non-communication of reasons for reopening as it involved factual verification not previously raised. It upheld the disallowance of interest expenses, stating that a hybrid accounting system (cash for receipts, mercantile for payments) is not permitted under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA as the claim was made bonafidely during the pendency of proceedings when taxable income was identified. However, the matter was remitted to the AO for deciding the quantum of deduction and verifying necessary documents. The additional ground regarding additions without seized material was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted inquiries and examined the issues raised by the Pr.CIT during the original assessment. The Pr.CIT's revision was based on a difference of opinion and inadequate inquiry, not a lack of inquiry, which does not warrant revision under Section 263. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the significant delay in serving the assessment order, without any explanation from the department, raised a presumption that the order was not passed within the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the assessment order was annulled.