Loading ITAT cases…
13 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 11,32,397/- and a separate addition of Rs. 9 lac for deposits constituted a double addition. The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of gifts and availability of funds from disclosed sources remained unverified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, thus breaching the principles of natural justice. The matter was therefore set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the appeal was not a valid appeal due to the non-compliance with the requirement of paying the correct appeal fee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was ex-parte and the assessee's explanation required proper verification. The Tribunal found that the AO should have conducted a proper inquiry to examine the assessee's explanation regarding the source of deposits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have examined the person from whom the document was found and the party to whom it belonged before making the addition. The assessee was denied an opportunity to cross-examine. Therefore, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have examined the person from whom the document was found and the party to whom it belonged before making the addition. The assessee was denied an opportunity to cross-examine. Therefore, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that maintaining books of accounts was not required, as the declared business income was below the threshold. The addition made by the AO was a consequence of the assessment, not prior knowledge of the requirement.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 should be partly allowed for statistical purposes. Specific grounds of appeal were either dismissed as not pressed or restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with directions.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 should be partly allowed for statistical purposes. Specific grounds of appeal were either dismissed as not pressed or restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with directions.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 should be partly allowed for statistical purposes. Specific grounds of appeal were either dismissed as not pressed or restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with directions.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 should be partly allowed for statistical purposes. Specific grounds of appeal were either dismissed as not pressed or restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with directions.
The Tribunal held that the facts concerning the disallowance of marketing expenses and other expenses were similar to a previous year's appeal. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with specific directions.
The Tribunal held that the facts concerning the disallowance of marketing expenses and other expenses were similar to a previous year's appeal. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with specific directions.