Loading ITAT cases…
27 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees were subsequently granted registration under Section 12AB, rendering their grievance redressed.
The Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO to verify if recipients filed returns and paid taxes for the Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance. The disallowance for belated PF/ESI contributions was upheld based on a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable because the assessee appealed against a letter denying waiver, not against an appealable order as per Section 246A of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on Railway Permanent Way, treating it as plant and machinery. It also dismissed the ground related to donations and contributions, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on Railway Permanent Way, treating it as plant and machinery. It also dismissed the ground related to donations and contributions, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on Railway Permanent Way, treating it as plant and machinery. It also dismissed the ground related to donations and contributions, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on Railway Permanent Way, treating it as plant and machinery. It also dismissed the ground related to donations and contributions, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on Railway Permanent Way, treating it as plant and machinery. It also dismissed the ground related to donations and contributions, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on Railway Permanent Way, treating it as plant and machinery. It also dismissed the ground related to donations and contributions, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on Railway Permanent Way, treating it as plant and machinery. It also dismissed the ground related to donations and contributions, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on Railway Permanent Way, treating it as plant and machinery. It also dismissed the ground related to donations and contributions, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on Railway Permanent Way, treating it as plant and machinery. It also dismissed the ground related to donations and contributions, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on Railway Permanent Way, treating it as plant and machinery. It also dismissed the ground related to donations and contributions, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees were subsequently granted registration under Section 12AB, rendering their grievance redressed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable because the assessee appealed against a letter denying waiver, not against an appealable order as per Section 246A of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application to rectify its previous order. It then adjudicated Ground No. 6 and, following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case, allowed the appeal on this ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on Railway Permanent Way, treating it as plant and machinery. It also dismissed the ground related to donations and contributions, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that income from Duty Draw Back and MEIS schemes are not derived from the industrial undertaking and therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A), following the Supreme Court decision in Saraf Exports.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. This was because the Assessing Officer had completed the revisionary assessment proceedings and passed a fresh assessment order, rendering the appeal against the PCIT's revisionary order infructuous.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the registration was subsequently granted, rendering the grievance redressed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and CIT(A) was justified, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The delayed deposit of employee contributions towards PF/ESI, even if made before the due date of filing the return of income, are not eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was correct. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., which stated that deposits must be made by the due dates specified under the respective PF/ESI Acts for deduction.
The Tribunal noted that by the time the appeals were heard, the assessees had been granted the registration they sought. Therefore, their grievance was redressed, and they pleaded for withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that by the time the appeals were heard, the assessees had been granted the registration they sought. Therefore, their grievance was redressed, and they pleaded for withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that by the time the appeals were heard, the assessees had been granted the registration they sought. Therefore, their grievance was redressed, and they pleaded for withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A should be restricted to 50% of the tax on underreported income, as the errors were due to bonafide mistakes in VAT returns and not suppression of facts. For Section 271B, the penalty was deleted as the audit report was prepared on time, and the delay in uploading was due to a bonafide mistake in selecting the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A should be restricted to 50% of the tax on underreported income, as the errors were due to bonafide mistakes in VAT returns and not suppression of facts. For Section 271B, the penalty was deleted as the audit report was prepared on time, and the delay in uploading was due to a bonafide mistake in selecting the assessment year.