Loading ITAT cases…
61 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that additions should be made in the hands of partners was incorrect. It found discrepancies in the additional income disclosed by partners before the Settlement Commission and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that additions should be made in the hands of partners was incorrect. It found discrepancies in the additional income disclosed by partners before the Settlement Commission and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the genuineness of the transaction and the source of funds with documentary evidence, including an agreement and a sworn statement from the buyer. The buyer was a customer, not a loan creditor, and the payment was made in installments from his realization of sales.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that additions should be made in the hands of partners was incorrect. It found discrepancies in the additional income disclosed by partners before the Settlement Commission and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (Form No.9B) showing the land as 'Nilam' (agricultural land) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. It also noted that appellate authorities can consider claims not raised in the original return.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. It noted that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that additions should be made in the hands of partners was flawed, as the assessee must prove the genuineness of the transaction and the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that additions should be made in the hands of partners was incorrect. It found discrepancies in the additional income disclosed by partners before the Settlement Commission and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that additions should be made in the hands of partners was incorrect. It found discrepancies in the additional income disclosed by partners before the Settlement Commission and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that additions should be made in the hands of partners was incorrect. It found discrepancies in the additional income disclosed by partners before the Settlement Commission and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that additions should be made in the hands of partners was incorrect. It found discrepancies in the additional income disclosed by partners before the Settlement Commission and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.