Loading ITAT cases…
47 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in estimating the GP based on a subsequent year's GP without finding any incorrectness in the assessee's books of account. The GP can vary due to various business factors.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reliance on SJ-III as a sale agreement was incorrect, as it was found to be loose sheets of paper with notations without any signature, and did not mention the assessee's name or property details. The Tribunal also noted that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) from Shri Babu John did not explicitly state that the assessee was paid Rs. 99.90 lakh for the property, nor did it contain details of the property or the seller. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proving actual consideration higher than the documented value lies with the Revenue and that the AO ought to have conducted independent inquiries, such as referring the matter to the DVO. Citing *M.M. Financers (P) Ltd. v. DCIT* and *CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram*, the Tribunal concluded that the adoption of sale consideration at Rs. 99.90 lakh was not supported by corroborative evidence. Therefore, the AO was directed to adopt the sale consideration as disclosed in the sale deed, i.e., Rs. 18.30 lakh. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the legal issues raised regarding the validity of the notice under Section 153C and the defunct status of the company, as the appeal was decided on merits.
The CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalties as the underlying additions were either deleted or set aside by the ITAT. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s findings.
The CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalties as the underlying additions were either deleted or set aside by the ITAT. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s findings.
The CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalties as the underlying additions were either deleted or set aside by the ITAT. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s findings.
The CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalties as the underlying additions were either deleted or set aside by the ITAT. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s findings.
The CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalties as the underlying additions were either deleted or set aside by the ITAT. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s findings.
The CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalties as the underlying additions were either deleted or set aside by the ITAT. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Regarding software amortization, the CIT(A) had rectified its earlier order, confirming the addition made by the AO, rendering the Revenue's ground infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the issue of delayed PF payment and accepted the assessee's explanation based on existing High Court decisions. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that for concluded/unabated assessments, additions under Section 153C are only permissible if based on seized material. For abated assessments, the AO can proceed with additions. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was upheld based on jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that for concluded/unabated assessments, additions under Section 153C are only permissible if based on seized material. For abated assessments, the AO can proceed with additions. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was upheld based on jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessments were concluded and unabated before the search, additions under Section 153C could only be made if supported by seized material. For the abated assessment year, the Assessing Officer could proceed on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case. It was held that depreciation on HTM investments, when treated as stock-in-trade and valued at cost or market price whichever is lower, is allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case. It was held that depreciation on HTM investments, when treated as stock-in-trade and valued at cost or market price whichever is lower, is allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that agricultural income tax paid by the assessee cannot be allowed as a deduction under the Income-tax Act. This is because agricultural income itself is exempt, and Section 43B only allows deductions that are otherwise allowable under the Act, which agricultural income tax is not.
The Tribunal held that the initial receipt of cash as loans, even if later converted to share application money, constituted a violation of Section 269SS. The assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for receiving the amount in cash.
The Tribunal held that agricultural income is exempt from Central Income Tax, and therefore, tax paid on such exempt income cannot be allowed as a deduction. Section 43B only allows deductions that are otherwise allowable under the Income Tax Act, which agricultural income tax is not.
The Tribunal held that agricultural income tax paid by the assessee cannot be allowed as a deduction under the Income-tax Act. This is because agricultural income itself is exempt, and Section 43B only allows deductions that are otherwise allowable under the Act, which agricultural income tax is not.
The Tribunal held that agricultural income tax paid by the assessee cannot be allowed as a deduction under the Income-tax Act. This is because agricultural income itself is exempt, and Section 43B only allows deductions that are otherwise allowable under the Act, which agricultural income tax is not.
The Tribunal permitted both the Revenue and the assessee to withdraw their appeal and cross-objection, respectively. Consequently, both were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that agricultural income tax paid by the assessee cannot be allowed as a deduction under the Income-tax Act. This is because agricultural income itself is exempt, and Section 43B only allows deductions that are otherwise allowable under the Act, which agricultural income tax is not.