Loading ITAT cases…
210 orders · Page 2 of 5
The tribunal held that due to the moratorium period under the IBC, no suits or legal proceedings can be instituted or continued against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee were dismissed.
The tribunal held that due to the moratorium period under the IBC, no suits or legal proceedings can be instituted or continued against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee were dismissed.
The tribunal held that due to the moratorium period under the IBC, no suits or legal proceedings can be instituted or continued against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that income already declared in original returns and subsequently added back by the AO constitutes a double addition and should be deleted. However, investments in SBQ Steels Ltd. were confirmed as unexplained income due to lack of satisfactory explanation and evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that income already declared in original returns and subsequently added back by the AO constitutes a double addition and should be deleted. However, investments in SBQ Steels Ltd. were confirmed as unexplained income due to lack of satisfactory explanation and evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the details of the investments and sources. Since the assessee provided additional evidence to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions, the matter was remitted back to the AO for examination.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that income already declared in original returns and subsequently added back by the AO constitutes a double addition and should be deleted. However, investments in SBQ Steels Ltd. were confirmed as unexplained income due to lack of satisfactory explanation and evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that once a company is dissolved by the NCLT, no proceedings can survive against it as it ceases to exist. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, since the assessee failed to provide any evidence to justify the investment in shares, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the details of the investments and sources. Since the assessee provided additional evidence to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions, the matter was remitted back to the AO for examination.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, finding it may have a material bearing on the case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, finding it may have a material bearing on the case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, finding it may have a material bearing on the case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the details of the transactions. Additional evidence was filed by the assessee, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to produce any evidence to prove that the investments in shares were out of explained sources. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to produce any evidence to prove that the investments in shares were out of explained sources. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to produce any evidence to prove that the investments in shares were out of explained sources. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to produce any evidence to prove that the investments in shares were out of explained sources. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to produce any evidence to prove that the investments in shares were out of explained sources. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to produce any evidence to prove that the investments in shares were out of explained sources. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to produce any evidence to prove that the investments in shares were out of explained sources. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that once a company is dissolved, no proceedings can continue against it as it ceases to exist. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that once a company is dissolved by the NCLT, no proceedings can survive against it as it ceases to exist. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to produce any evidence to prove that the investments in shares were out of explained sources. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that once a company is dissolved by the NCLT, no proceedings can survive against it as it ceases to exist. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any specific seized document while making additions, and the additions were based on third-party statements and views on group entities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that income already declared in original returns and subsequently added back by the AO constitutes a double addition and should be deleted. However, investments in SBQ Steels Ltd. were confirmed as unexplained income due to lack of satisfactory explanation and evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that income already declared in original returns and subsequently added back by the AO constitutes a double addition and should be deleted. However, investments in SBQ Steels Ltd. were confirmed as unexplained income due to lack of satisfactory explanation and evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that once a company is dissolved, no proceedings can survive against it as it ceases to exist. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that income already declared in original returns and subsequently added back by the AO constitutes a double addition and should be deleted. However, investments in SBQ Steels Ltd. were confirmed as unexplained income due to lack of satisfactory explanation and evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that once a company is dissolved by the NCLT, no proceedings can survive against it as it ceases to exist. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that income already declared in original returns and subsequently added back by the AO constitutes a double addition and should be deleted. However, investments in SBQ Steels Ltd. were confirmed as unexplained income due to lack of satisfactory explanation and evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, finding that the assessments under Section 153C were barred by limitation. The appeal for assessment year 2014-15 was dismissed due to an un-condonable delay in filing.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, finding that the assessments under Section 153C were barred by limitation. The appeal for assessment year 2014-15 was dismissed due to an un-condonable delay in filing.
The Tribunal found that the facts were unclear regarding the actual consideration received and the existence of disputes. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for re-examination and re-computation of income.