Loading ITAT cases…
268 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal held that additions made in the hands of the assessee for sale of flats should be deleted as the income was already offered to tax by the company. Regarding seized jewellery, the Tribunal found the estimation by the CIT(A) to be arbitrary and accepted the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority exceeded its powers under Section 251(1A) by remanding the issue. The Tribunal found that the cost of improvement was sufficiently detailed in the assessee's return and the adjustment by CPC was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not satisfactorily dealt with certain legal issues and had not applied its mind properly. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for readjudication de novo.
The tribunal held that reimbursement of expenses without any service element does not warrant a mark-up, and year-end provisions, if created on a scientific basis and reversed in the succeeding year, are allowable as deductions. The issue of provisions was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had remanded one addition, but dismissed another addition of ₹2,19,65,000 for creditors, observing that the documents were already discussed. However, the AO concluded the assessment before the assessee could furnish full details.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to participate in both assessment and appellate proceedings, leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, noting the assessee's negligence in participating before the ld. CIT(A), set aside the ld. CIT(A)'s order. The case was remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing another opportunity to the assessee, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing telescoping of undisclosed income from earlier years to explain cash deposits in the current year. The Tribunal agreed that the same income cannot be taxed twice.
The Tribunal, relying on a Madras High Court judgment (United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd.), held that income from the sale of Silver Oak trees, cultivated with human effort and used as shade trees in a tea estate, constitutes agricultural income. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer, treating it as capital gains, was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is contrary to the e-assessment scheme of 2022. Therefore, the proceedings are invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts due to improper maintenance and lack of supporting vouchers. Consequently, additions were made on an estimated basis for bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions for cash deposits during demonetization as the assessee had explained the source from regular business receipts. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee operated in an essential sector permitted to receive cash.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts due to improper maintenance and lack of supporting vouchers. Consequently, additions were made on an estimated basis for bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the timeline prescribed for filing Form 10AB should be treated as directory and not mandatory, especially considering the transitional nature of amendments. The rejection of the application purely on a technical ground was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions for cash deposits during demonetization as the assessee had explained the source from regular business receipts. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee operated in an essential sector permitted to receive cash.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts due to improper maintenance and lack of supporting vouchers. Consequently, additions were made on an estimated basis for bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts due to improper maintenance and lack of supporting vouchers. Consequently, additions were made on an estimated basis for bogus purchases.