Loading ITAT cases…
26 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal noted that a previous assessment year (2017-18) had already established that the bank account belonged to the proprietor, Mr. Aftab Alam, and not the firm. This crucial finding was not considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the evidence submitted by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering all evidence.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) passed orders without considering crucial facts already on record from a previous assessment year, which indicated the bank account was operated by others. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the nature of the transaction is determinative of taxability, and income from derivative trading should be set off against previous years' losses from derivative trading, irrespective of how it was shown in the return. The AO's approach was inconsistent.
The Tribunal found that due to the assessee's remote location and unfamiliarity with the IT portal, compliance was not made. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the source of the deposit before the AO.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the evidence submitted by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering all evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the evidence submitted by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering all evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 153A were validly initiated. It also deleted certain additions related to repairs and maintenance and diesel expenses, following its earlier decision for AY 2009-10.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and partly allowed the cross-objection, while dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Specific additions were upheld, reduced, or deleted based on the evidence and arguments presented.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 153A were validly initiated. It also deleted certain additions related to repairs and maintenance and diesel expenses, following its earlier decision for AY 2009-10.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) passed orders without considering crucial facts already on record from a previous assessment year, which indicated the bank account was operated by others. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the evidence submitted by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering all evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 153A were validly initiated. It also deleted certain additions related to repairs and maintenance and diesel expenses, following its earlier decision for AY 2009-10.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and partly allowed the cross-objection, while dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Specific additions were upheld, reduced, or deleted based on the evidence and arguments presented.
The Tribunal noted that a previous assessment year (2017-18) had already established that the bank account belonged to the proprietor, Mr. Aftab Alam, and not the firm. This crucial finding was not considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, agreeing that the AO failed to provide evidence of sales outside books or rejected the assessee's books. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, agreeing that the AO failed to provide evidence of sales outside books or rejected the assessee's books. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that additions for sundry creditors where the assessee failed to provide evidence beyond ledger accounts were justified. However, regarding additions based on the DVO's report for investment in construction, the matter was restored to the AO to consider the assessee's objections.
The Tribunal held that additions for sundry creditors where the assessee failed to provide evidence beyond ledger accounts were justified. However, regarding additions based on the DVO's report for investment in construction, the matter was restored to the AO to consider the assessee's objections.
The Tribunal held that additions for sundry creditors where the assessee failed to provide evidence beyond ledger accounts were justified. However, regarding additions based on the DVO's report for investment in construction, the matter was restored to the AO to consider the assessee's objections.
The Tribunal held that additions for sundry creditors where the assessee failed to provide evidence beyond ledger accounts were justified. However, regarding additions based on the DVO's report for investment in construction, the matter was restored to the AO to consider the assessee's objections.
The Tribunal held that additions related to sundry creditors where no evidence was produced were justified. However, for additions based on the DVO's report, the matter was restored to the AO to consider the assessee's objections.
The Tribunal held that additions for sundry creditors where the assessee failed to provide evidence beyond ledger accounts were justified. However, regarding additions based on the DVO's report for investment in construction, the matter was restored to the AO to consider the assessee's objections.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It held that the notice under section 143(2) was validly issued by the AO having jurisdiction at that time. However, it found that the explanation for cash deposits required further verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. It found that the bank account in question likely belongs to the assessee's father's proprietorship concern and that the deposits need to be verified against the business's cash book.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to appear. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to present their case on merits.