Loading ITAT cases…
74 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim of land holdings was partially unsubstantiated, particularly the lease claims. Given that the assessee submitted additional evidence (lease deeds) after the assessment, the issue of agricultural income was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding cash withdrawals offsetting deposits and directed the AO to re-verify the claim. However, the invocation of Section 68 for undisclosed bank deposits was upheld.
The Tribunal heard the Revenue's representative, who had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found the 8% profit rate to be on the higher side, considering the assessee's business nature and profit rates in subsequent years not exceeding 3.22%. Therefore, the AO was directed to adopt a profit rate of 4%.
For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings due to invalid sanction.
For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings due to invalid sanction.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that since more than three years had passed since the end of AY 2016-17, approval for the Section 148 notice should have been obtained from the higher authority specified in Section 151(ii), not the Principal Commissioner. The approval obtained was therefore invalid, rendering the reassessment proceedings without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter back to the CIT for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee maintained regular books of accounts and the closing cash-in-hand was not controverted. No defects were pointed out in the books, and additions cannot be made on mere presumption.
The Tribunal found that the assessee needed another opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits by furnishing details of its members and maintaining separate ledgers. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to disprove the genuineness of these receipts.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary evidence during the fresh proceedings.
The Tribunal held that penalties for concealment are not leviable when the underlying addition is purely consequential to an estimated income, as estimation does not establish deliberate concealment. The penalties were deleted, following the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.
The Tribunal held that penalties for concealment are not leviable when the underlying addition is purely consequential to an estimated income, as estimation does not establish deliberate concealment. The penalties were deleted, following the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.
The Tribunal held that penalties for concealment are not leviable when the underlying addition is purely consequential to an estimated income, as estimation does not establish deliberate concealment. The penalties were deleted, following the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.
The Tribunal held that a minor procedural delay of nine days in filing Form No. 10-IE, attributed to technical glitches and not controverted by the revenue, should not result in the denial of the substantive benefit of section 115BAC. The assessee's intention and substantial compliance were considered.
The Tribunal held that while the levy of interest is mandatory and can be rectified, the quantum of additions is pending in the first appeal. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration after the outcome of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that a minor procedural delay of nine days in filing Form No. 10-IE, attributed to technical glitches and not controverted by the revenue, should not result in the denial of the substantive benefit of section 115BAC. The assessee's intention and substantial compliance were considered.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance before lower authorities but recognized the significant factual contention regarding business takeover and double taxation. It held that the matter required verification of primary documentary evidence and set aside the CIT(A)'s order for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer and set aside the impugned order, restoring the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The legal representative was directed to present and prove the assessee's case.
The Tribunal noted that previous assessment years showed profit rates between 1.84% and 3.95%. Considering this, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to apply a profit rate of 3% on the assessee's turnover.