Loading ITAT cases…
16 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the revised returns filed within the time prescribed under Section 139(5) are valid and efface the original return. The AO was directed to redo the assessment considering the revised return.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the Principal CIT's orders under Section 263 were unsustainable as they were passed without proper inquiry and without considering the assessee's submissions, thus quashing the orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the Principal CIT's orders under Section 263 were unsustainable as they were passed without proper inquiry and without considering the assessee's submissions, thus quashing the orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the Principal CIT's orders under Section 263 were unsustainable as they were passed without proper inquiry and without considering the assessee's submissions, thus quashing the orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the Principal CIT's orders under Section 263 were unsustainable as they were passed without proper inquiry and without considering the assessee's submissions, thus quashing the orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the Principal CIT's orders under Section 263 were unsustainable as they were passed without proper inquiry and without considering the assessee's submissions, thus quashing the orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the Principal CIT's orders under Section 263 were unsustainable as they were passed without proper inquiry and without considering the assessee's submissions, thus quashing the orders.
The Tribunal held that the revised returns filed within the time prescribed under Section 139(5) are valid and efface the original return. The AO was directed to redo the assessment considering the revised return.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party information without proper verification or opportunity for cross-examination are unsustainable. Evidence like IT returns, confirmation letters, and TDS deductions from loan creditors were considered sufficient to prove genuineness.
The Tribunal deleted the addition concerning loan creditors, following its previous order. It also deleted the addition for excess stock, finding that the eye estimation was not a scientific method and the Revenue failed to conduct physical verification, despite the assessee challenging the estimation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand, as evidenced by previous balance sheets, to cover the deposit. Therefore, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary order under Section 263 was unsustainable because the issues raised by the Principal CIT were unconnected to the limited scrutiny assessment. The assessment order could not be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue on grounds not covered by the limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The lenders had adequate funds, disclosed substantial income, and their bank balances were not meager. The Tribunal distinguished the case from precedents where loans were deemed non-genuine due to meager balances in lenders' accounts.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should be restricted to 30% of the expenses, following a coordinate bench decision and the principle of removing hardship as per Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory and can be filed at the appellate stage. The delay in filing was considered a venial breach, and the CBDT's instructions allow for condoning such delays.