Loading ITAT cases…
23 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that a valid service of notice under Section 148 is a mandatory legal requirement for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147. Since the service of notice, including substituted service by affixture, was found to be defective and not proven, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that a valid service of notice under Section 148 is a mandatory legal requirement for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147. Since the service of notice, including substituted service by affixture, was found to be defective and not proven, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the Valuation Officer's report was unreliable as it did not consider the actual year of construction or allow for depreciation. Therefore, the addition based on this report was not sustained.
The Tribunal found that the Valuation Officer's report was unreliable as it did not consider the actual year of construction or allow for depreciation. Therefore, the addition based on this report was not sustained.
The Tribunal found that the Valuation Officer's report was unreliable as it did not consider the actual year of construction or allow for depreciation. Therefore, the addition based on this report was not sustained.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the difference in stock valuation, considering normal accounting practices and the estimated nature of figures provided to the bank.
The Tribunal held that a valid service of notice under Section 148 is a mandatory legal requirement for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147. Since the service of notice, including substituted service by affixture, was found to be defective and not proven, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that technical know-how expenses are revenue expenditure, following previous ITAT orders. Sales tax subsidy was also treated as capital receipt, aligning with High Court decisions. Electricity duty exemption, being hypothetical income not yet received, was deleted from taxable income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for deleting the addition, based on a fire incident, was not sound as it did not account for the period before the fire and lacked bifurcation of damaged stock. The Tribunal set aside the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that technical know-how expenses are revenue expenditure, following previous ITAT orders. Sales tax subsidy was also treated as capital receipt, aligning with High Court decisions. Electricity duty exemption, being hypothetical income not yet received, was deleted from taxable income.
The Tribunal allowed the 100% deduction under Section 80IC, following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Aarham Softronics. Regarding the cash deposits, the Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 3,25,000/-, sustaining the remaining addition of Rs. 2,50,000/-.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it went to the root of the matter. However, since the evidence was not available to the lower appellate authority, the issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issues regarding the taxability of interest income and the OTS amount back to the CIT(A). This was to allow the CIT(A) to verify the quantum of interest and consider additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the OTS amount.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 5,89,04,300/- on account of corpus fund was justified based on a previous ITAT decision. However, it disagreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning for allowing exemption on unexplained unsecured loans, confirming additions of Rs. 85,88,616/-.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was not justified as no incriminating material was found during the search. The additions made on account of sale proceeds of listed equity shares and alleged commission expenses were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was not justified as no incriminating material was found during the search. The additions made on account of sale proceeds of listed equity shares and alleged commission expenses were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was not justified as no incriminating material was found during the search. The additions made on account of sale proceeds of listed equity shares and alleged commission expenses were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was not justified as no incriminating material was found during the search. The additions made on account of sale proceeds of listed equity shares and alleged commission expenses were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was not justified as no incriminating material was found during the search. The additions made on account of sale proceeds of listed equity shares and alleged commission expenses were also deleted.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not provided a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the assessee's submissions regarding evidence provided. Therefore, the case was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was not justified as no incriminating material was found during the search. The additions made on account of sale proceeds of listed equity shares and alleged commission expenses were also deleted.