Loading ITAT cases…
162 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed under Section 154 is maintainable. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without deciding the merits.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed under Section 154 is maintainable. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without deciding the merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus of proving the identity and capacity of the ultimate investors, especially when funds were routed through tax havens. Merely receiving funds through banking channels or obtaining approvals was not sufficient when surrounding circumstances indicated a lack of transparency.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined issues related to interest, audit fees, and capital gains. Therefore, the PCIT's order to revise the assessment was justified, and the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not substantiate the cash deposit for the car purchase, and the gift from the father was also not supported by evidence of agricultural income. The cash book submitted was also found to be unreliable.
The tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's ill health and the fact that the CIT(A) orders were passed on a deceased person. The orders of the CIT(A) were quashed as illegal.
The tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's ill health and the fact that the CIT(A) orders were passed on a deceased person. The orders of the CIT(A) were quashed as illegal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without any adjudication on the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a speaking order.
The Tribunal found the reason for delay to be not genuine, as the assessee's PAN was readily available on the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was decided ex-parte due to the assessee's absence.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C was invalid as no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found during the search. Furthermore, the purchases from unregistered dealers were considered genuine, with payments largely made through banking channels and cash payments falling under Rule 6DD(f) exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C was invalid as no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found during the search. Furthermore, the purchases from unregistered dealers were considered genuine, with payments largely made through banking channels and cash payments falling under Rule 6DD(f) exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C was invalid as no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found during the search. Furthermore, the purchases from unregistered dealers were considered genuine, with payments largely made through banking channels and cash payments falling under Rule 6DD(f) exceptions.