Loading ITAT cases…
15 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the higher income disclosed by the assessee in its computation provided an adequate source for the fixed deposits. The Tribunal also noted that fixed deposits in family members' names could not be added to the assessee's income.
The tribunal held that the payments for shortage of iron ore fines were compensation for violation of license terms and thus business expenditure. For donations, it was held that without 80G certificates, the disallowance needed to be increased.
The Tribunal held that accumulated profits for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) should be considered as on the date of giving the loans or advances. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after verifying accumulated profits on the date of granting advances.
The Tribunal held that accumulated profits for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) should be considered as on the date of giving the loans or advances. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after verifying accumulated profits on the date of granting advances.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as withdrawn. The revenue's appeal was admitted after condoning a delay. The core issue revolves around the AO's disallowance of losses claimed by the assessee in derivative trading and treating the income as unexplained.
The Tribunal held that since the audit report was filed before the completion of assessment and the revenue did not issue a notice for defective return, the delay in filing the audit report was implicitly condoned. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's revision order was unsustainable as the AO had conducted in-depth inquiries and the issues raised were either considered in the preceding assessment year or accepted in the scrutiny assessment of the impugned year. The revisionary order was quashed.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning the Rs. 50,000/- addition as withdrawn. For the other appeal, the disallowance of 10% of expenses was reduced to 5%, following a coordinate bench decision.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning the Rs. 50,000/- addition as withdrawn. For the other appeal, the disallowance of 10% of expenses was reduced to 5%, following a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It upheld the Pr. CIT's revision regarding the non-application of Section 115BBE but modified the directions for assessing the income from cash deposits, restoring the issue to the AO for denovo assessment.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. This was due to the failure of the assessee to cure the defects pointed out in the defect notices.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT could not use revisionary powers to direct additions on issues not connected to the limited scrutiny issues. Since no error was pointed out in the original assessment concerning the limited scrutiny issues, the revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had already examined the salaries paid to the governing body members in detail and found them to be reasonable and even lower than market and AICTE approved rates. Therefore, the revision order passed by the CIT(E) was unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to invoke Section 115BBE on the addition made under Section 69A was an error prejudicial to revenue. Similarly, the non-deduction of TDS on payments to Bajaj Finance Ltd. also constituted an error. However, for other issues raised by the Pr. CIT, the Tribunal found no basis to deem the assessment order erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT cannot substitute his opinion for that of the AO under the guise of revision. The issues raised by the Pr.CIT had already been examined by the AO during the original assessment.