Loading ITAT cases…
236 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal decided the appeals by following its decision in the lead case of M/s. Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessee (M/s. Sankalp Venture LLP) were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The reasoning, as indicated by the reference to paragraphs 8 to 8.6 of the lead case, suggests that the Tribunal likely upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the real income (profit element) at a certain percentage, rather than the entire unaccounted receipts and payments. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeals implies that the Tribunal did not find merit in the Revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s relief, particularly concerning the deletion of additions for unexplained expenditure and the estimation of profit. The operative direction was to partly allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal decided the appeals by following its decision in the lead case of M/s. Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessee (M/s. Sankalp Venture LLP) were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The reasoning, as indicated by the reference to paragraphs 8 to 8.6 of the lead case, suggests that the Tribunal likely upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the real income (profit element) at a certain percentage, rather than the entire unaccounted receipts and payments. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeals implies that the Tribunal did not find merit in the Revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s relief, particularly concerning the deletion of additions for unexplained expenditure and the estimation of profit. The operative direction was to partly allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal decided the appeals by following its decision in the lead case of M/s. Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessee (M/s. Sankalp Venture LLP) were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The reasoning, as indicated by the reference to paragraphs 8 to 8.6 of the lead case, suggests that the Tribunal likely upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the real income (profit element) at a certain percentage, rather than the entire unaccounted receipts and payments. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeals implies that the Tribunal did not find merit in the Revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s relief, particularly concerning the deletion of additions for unexplained expenditure and the estimation of profit. The operative direction was to partly allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal decided the appeals by following its decision in the lead case of M/s. Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessee (M/s. Sankalp Venture LLP) were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The reasoning, as indicated by the reference to paragraphs 8 to 8.6 of the lead case, suggests that the Tribunal likely upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the real income (profit element) at a certain percentage, rather than the entire unaccounted receipts and payments. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeals implies that the Tribunal did not find merit in the Revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s relief, particularly concerning the deletion of additions for unexplained expenditure and the estimation of profit. The operative direction was to partly allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal decided the appeals by following its decision in the lead case of M/s. Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessee (M/s. Sankalp Venture LLP) were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The reasoning, as indicated by the reference to paragraphs 8 to 8.6 of the lead case, suggests that the Tribunal likely upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the real income (profit element) at a certain percentage, rather than the entire unaccounted receipts and payments. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeals implies that the Tribunal did not find merit in the Revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s relief, particularly concerning the deletion of additions for unexplained expenditure and the estimation of profit. The operative direction was to partly allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal decided the appeals by following its decision in the lead case of M/s. Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessee (M/s. Sankalp Venture LLP) were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The reasoning, as indicated by the reference to paragraphs 8 to 8.6 of the lead case, suggests that the Tribunal likely upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the real income (profit element) at a certain percentage, rather than the entire unaccounted receipts and payments. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeals implies that the Tribunal did not find merit in the Revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s relief, particularly concerning the deletion of additions for unexplained expenditure and the estimation of profit. The operative direction was to partly allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal decided the appeals by following its decision in the lead case of M/s. Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessee (M/s. Sankalp Venture LLP) were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The reasoning, as indicated by the reference to paragraphs 8 to 8.6 of the lead case, suggests that the Tribunal likely upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the real income (profit element) at a certain percentage, rather than the entire unaccounted receipts and payments. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeals implies that the Tribunal did not find merit in the Revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s relief, particularly concerning the deletion of additions for unexplained expenditure and the estimation of profit. The operative direction was to partly allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal decided the appeals by following its decision in the lead case of M/s. Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessee (M/s. Sankalp Venture LLP) were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The reasoning, as indicated by the reference to paragraphs 8 to 8.6 of the lead case, suggests that the Tribunal likely upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the real income (profit element) at a certain percentage, rather than the entire unaccounted receipts and payments. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeals implies that the Tribunal did not find merit in the Revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s relief, particularly concerning the deletion of additions for unexplained expenditure and the estimation of profit. The operative direction was to partly allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal decided the appeals by following its decision in the lead case of M/s. Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessee (M/s. Sankalp Venture LLP) were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The reasoning, as indicated by the reference to paragraphs 8 to 8.6 of the lead case, suggests that the Tribunal likely upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the real income (profit element) at a certain percentage, rather than the entire unaccounted receipts and payments. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeals implies that the Tribunal did not find merit in the Revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s relief, particularly concerning the deletion of additions for unexplained expenditure and the estimation of profit. The operative direction was to partly allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that taxes should be levied on real income and not arbitrarily. It partially allowed the assessee's appeals by estimating the profit on unaccounted receipts at 14% and dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning certain deletions made by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications by the CIT(Exemption) was premature and not based on a thorough examination of the trust's activities and documents. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a purposive reading of the trust deed and adherence to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E)'s rejection was based solely on procedural grounds without examining the genuineness of the activities. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and decided to restore the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E)'s rejection was based solely on procedural grounds without examining the genuineness of the activities. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and decided to restore the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E)'s rejection was based solely on procedural grounds without examining the genuineness of the activities. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and decided to restore the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications by the CIT(Exemption) was premature and not based on a thorough examination of the trust's activities and documents. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a purposive reading of the trust deed and adherence to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E)'s rejection was based solely on procedural grounds without examining the genuineness of the activities. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and decided to restore the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the identified objects were not substantially religious in nature. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had erred in presuming certain event expenses were religious without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain. The matter was set aside for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value was less than 5%. Therefore, the addition made under Section 56(2)(x) was not sustainable and was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that a belated return does not automatically disentitle an assessee to deductions under Section 54F, especially when the investments were made within the stipulated timeframe. Since the claim for deductions was considered valid by the CIT(A) (albeit proportionately), there was no concealment of income.
The assessee's Authorised Representative submitted that a consequential assessment order had already been passed, wherein the deduction claimed under Section 35(2AB) was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal, which was not objected to by the Departmental Representative. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal, dismissing the appeal as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a 'sufficient cause' for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, as required by Section 249(3) of the Act. The delay was considered substantial and demonstrated a lack of due care, thus the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO was incorrect in treating the transactions with AEL as accommodation entries. The Tribunal noted that AEL was a group concern managed by the assessee and her family during the relevant period, and similar transactions were accepted as genuine in other related cases. The addition was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that while the second PAN was active, the assessee claimed all income was reported under the primary PAN. It directed the assessee to surrender the active second PAN and instructed the AO to verify if all income from branches was accounted for under the primary PAN. If confirmed, the additions would be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 was valid. However, the estimation of profit at 9.29% was found to be excessive, as the assessee's audit report indicated a gross profit/turnover of 1.74% and net profit/turnover of 1.10%. The AO erred in taking a different turnover figure to calculate the profit.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was properly issued and proceedings under Section 147 were conducted correctly. However, the issue of the assessee's share (1/7 or 1/15) in the land transaction was not properly verified by the AO or CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a procedural lapse which was condoned by CBDT Circular No. 7/2024. The circular provided relief for applications rejected due to delayed filing or incorrect section code, allowing them to be refiled within an extended period. The assessee's application was filed within this extended period.
The Tribunal held that while the rejection of books of accounts was justified due to the absence of a stock register, the quantification of commission income needed verification. The matter was remanded to the AO for re-adjudication after verifying turnover accepted by VAT authorities.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not properly investigate the source of funds for the husband's investment and failed to provide the assessee an opportunity to rebut the remand report. The assessee had demonstrated that the investment was made by her husband and discharged the burden of proof.
The Tribunal held that the amount received for relinquishing rights over the land, due to lack of registered documents and clear title, cannot be treated as long-term capital gain and correctly treated as income from other sources. However, the refund from the life insurance policy, with explanations provided, should not be treated as unexplained money under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had purchased shares through an off-market transaction, held them for over a year, and sold them on a recognized stock exchange, paying the Security Transaction Tax (STT). The AO failed to demonstrate the assessee's involvement in price manipulation. The gain was considered an incidental benefit from the price rise.
The Tribunal held that while the rejection of books of accounts was justified due to the absence of a stock register, the quantification of commission income needed verification. The matter was remanded to the AO for re-adjudication after verifying turnover accepted by VAT authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had purchased shares through an off-market transaction, held them for over a year, and sold them on a recognized stock exchange, paying the Security Transaction Tax (STT). The AO failed to demonstrate the assessee's involvement in price manipulation. The gain was considered an incidental benefit from the price rise.
The Tribunal held that while the rejection of books of accounts was justified due to the absence of a stock register, the quantification of commission income needed verification. The matter was remanded to the AO for re-adjudication after verifying turnover accepted by VAT authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had purchased shares through an off-market transaction, held them for over a year, and sold them on a recognized stock exchange, paying the Security Transaction Tax (STT). The AO failed to demonstrate the assessee's involvement in price manipulation. The gain was considered an incidental benefit from the price rise.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to conduct independent inquiry regarding the nature and source of undisclosed income made the assessment order erroneous. The PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the PCIT, dismissing both appeals. The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted independent inquiry regarding the nature and source of the undisclosed income admitted during the survey. Relying on Explanation 2(a) to Section 263, which states that an order is deemed erroneous if passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made, the Tribunal held that the PCIT was well within his jurisdiction to invoke Section 263. The Tribunal cited the Delhi High Court's decisions in ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. and Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. ACIT, emphasizing that the AO is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator and failure to make necessary inquiries renders the order erroneous. The Tribunal concluded that since the specific facts proved the AO's failure to conduct independent inquiry, the PCIT's action was justified. The issue regarding Section 269ST and Section 271DA was also implicitly considered as part of the PCIT's reasoning for the order being erroneous and prejudicial.