Loading ITAT cases…
117 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders invalid. Consequently, the assessments were quashed.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The PCIT's order under section 263 was challenged, but the assessee found the issue resolved in a consequential order.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from FDRs, utilized for obtaining Letters of Credit for foreign transactions related to the oil business, constitutes part of the assessee's business income. Consequently, the addition on account of FDR interest was deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from FDRs, utilized for obtaining Letters of Credit for foreign transactions related to the oil business, constitutes part of the assessee's business income. Consequently, the addition on account of FDR interest was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 to revise an order based on issues outside the scope of limited scrutiny. The Assessing Officer had fulfilled his duties regarding the limited issues, and the PCIT could not expand the scope of scrutiny in revision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated Section 40A(2) as the interest rate was consistent and deleted the addition. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal accepted the auditor's certificate correcting a mistake in Form 3CD and quashed the addition.
The tribunal found that the notice was factually served on the assessee, but agreed that the penalty quantum should be restricted by excluding the Covid period as per the Supreme Court's directions. The AO was directed to recompute the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the specific grounds challenging the jurisdiction for reopening under Section 147 were not adequately taken before the first appellate authority. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication of the legal issue regarding jurisdiction, keeping other grounds open.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the cash with material evidence and made contradictory statements. The cashbook did not reflect any withdrawals for personal use, and there was no evidence of the mother's treatment at the specified hospital.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT did not conduct independent inquiries to verify the assessee's claims regarding payments. The Tribunal restored the matter to the PCIT for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal held that there was a basis for calculating the net profit for AY 2007-08 on an average basis considering past trends. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal considered the CBDT circular regarding the impact of floods and the assessee's inability to submit documents.
The Tribunal, considering the arguments and documents, remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal held that a typographical error in the amount of cash deposit mentioned in the reasons recorded for issuing a notice under Section 148 was curable and did not invalidate the notice. However, the issue regarding the classification of the land sold as agricultural and the related exemption was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that there was a basis for calculating the net profit for AY 2007-08 on an average basis considering past trends. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal considered the CBDT circular regarding the impact of floods and the assessee's inability to submit documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the reasonable explanation provided by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the addition and re-computation of interest, ensuring the assessee gets a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and rejected the assessee's adjournment request, proceeding ex-parte. Considering the hardship faced by the assessee in the Kashmir Valley, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the source of the cash deposit was explained by the bank statement showing deposits by Ms. Amandeep Kaur and Sh. Angrej Singh. The authorities below failed to verify with Bajaj Allianz or the depositors, relying on presumption, and thus the penalty was unjustified.