Loading ITAT cases…
219 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the issue needs to be re-examined by the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain the source of the time deposit, particularly in light of the claim that it originated from agricultural income or an agricultural loan.
The Tribunal held that both parties failed to present adequate evidence. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow 50% of the agricultural income claimed by the assessee, confirming the disallowance of the remaining 50%.
The Tribunal held that both parties failed to present adequate evidence. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow 50% of the agricultural income claimed by the assessee, confirming the disallowance of the remaining 50%.
The Tribunal held that both parties failed to present adequate evidence. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow 50% of the agricultural income claimed by the assessee, confirming the disallowance of the remaining 50%.
The Tribunal restored the issues back to the AO for de novo assessment, allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary details.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims regarding the nature of services and the cost-to-cost reimbursement. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside due to insufficient appreciation of the evidence.
The Tribunal restored the issues back to the AO for de novo assessment, allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary details.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims regarding the nature of services and the cost-to-cost reimbursement. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside due to insufficient appreciation of the evidence.
The Tribunal held that belated payments of employees' contribution to PF & ESI cannot be allowed as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make additions on issues other than those for which reasons were recorded for reopening, especially when no addition was made on the original reasons. The assessment was quashed as it was not based on the recorded reasons.
The Tribunal held that if the tax audit report is filed before the completion of assessment proceedings, and there is a reasonable cause for the delay, penalty under Section 271B cannot be levied. The delay was considered a venial technical breach.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation for accepting SBNs due to the perishable nature of milk is understandable, the AO and assessee could not fully justify their cases with relevant evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate a 25% profit on the cash deposits and delete the remaining 75% of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence to substantiate the claim of receiving Rs. 2,15,28,200/- over and above the sale consideration recorded in the sale deed. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, if the assessment was unabated at the time of the search. Following Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the AO ought to have entertained the rectification petition when the assessee filed the relevant Form 10B. The CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal without appreciating this fact.
The Tribunal noted that neither the CIT(A) nor the AO had properly adjudicated the issue of reopening. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO to first consider the reopening issue and then decide the merits of the capital introduction.
The Tribunal found no substance in the legal grounds raised by the assessee regarding notice issuance. However, it restored the addition of cash deposits back to the Assessing Officer for substantiation by the assessee, considering the assessee is a cooperative society maintaining books of accounts.
The tribunal decided to remit the issue of sundry creditor differences back to the AO for verification. However, it confirmed the additions related to unexplained investments and unconfirmed payments to landholders.
The Tribunal noted that neither the CIT(A) nor the AO had properly adjudicated the issue of reopening. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO to first consider the reopening issue and then decide the merits of the capital introduction.