Loading ITAT cases…
161 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested the withdrawal of both appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the AO relied on a retracted statement without corroboration and denied the assessee's right to cross-examine a crucial witness. The absence of any evidence at the assessee's premises further weakened the Revenue's case.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the AO relied on a retracted statement without corroboration and denied the assessee's right to cross-examine a key witness. No evidence of cash investment was found at the assessee's premises.
The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the assessee's claims and the AO's approach. While a full disallowance was not sustained, a 10% ad hoc disallowance was upheld on subcontract expenses due to the possibility of manipulation and accommodation entries.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim that 'V' series billing started only in May 2017 was not supported by evidence, and the MD's admission of unaccounted sales was not withdrawn. The Tribunal found that the revenue had correctly brought to tax the unaccounted sales.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's admission of unaccounted sales under the 'V' series was supported by evidence found during the search. The assessee's subsequent claims that the practice started later and was withdrawn were not substantiated.
The Tribunal found inconsistencies in both the AO's approach and the assessee's defense regarding subcontract expenses. A full disallowance was not sustained, but a 10% ad hoc disallowance was upheld due to the possibility of manipulation and accommodation entries.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80P as the return of income was filed belatedly, and the interest income from bank deposits was not attributable to the eligible business activity. The issue of provision for audit fee and interest expenses was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the AO relied on a retracted statement without corroboration and denied the assessee's right to cross-examine a crucial witness. The absence of any evidence at the assessee's premises further weakened the Revenue's case.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the AO relied on a retracted statement without corroboration and denied the assessee's right to cross-examine a crucial witness. The absence of any evidence at the assessee's premises further weakened the Revenue's case.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the AO relied on a retracted statement without corroboration and denied the assessee's right to cross-examine a crucial witness. The absence of any evidence at the assessee's premises further weakened the Revenue's case.