Loading ITAT cases…
662 orders · Page 6 of 14
The Tribunal held that rough notings in loose sheets have limited evidentiary value and cannot solely determine the commission rate. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission calculation.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 20,00,000/-, which was applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 10(26BBB) as it was not established by a Central, State, or Provincial Act, but rather incorporated under the Companies Act. The AO's assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular mandates not filing appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs, and this applies retrospectively. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. The dismissal was without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT Circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 20,00,000/-, which applied retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made without providing the assessee with the incriminating material used by the AO and without properly verifying disputed facts. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, which was less than Rs. 20,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that the issue of limitation under Section 201(3) was not properly adjudicated by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide whether the Assessing Officer's order was barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal found the ex-parte, non-speaking order of the CIT(A) unsustainable. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing adequate opportunities.
The Tribunal allowed the trading loss claim, finding it not strange to sell old stock at a reduced rate, especially when the Assessing Officer accepted the cash book and financial statements. However, the short-term capital loss claim was dismissed due to lack of corroborative evidence and failure to meet the requirements for a revised return.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding that the amount received on April 6, 2011, was a security deposit from a broker and not an advance sale consideration. Therefore, the date of sale was correctly considered as May 30, 2011, making the purchase of the new property outside the permissible period for Section 54F exemption.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was absent and showed no interest in prosecuting the appeal, it should be dismissed for non-prosecution. This decision was based on precedent where similar circumstances led to the dismissal of an appeal.
The Tribunal, in accordance with ITAT Rules and various judicial precedents, treated the appeal as unadmitted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without adjudicating on its merits.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee before rejecting the books of account and making additions. The CIT(A) also failed to provide reasons for not admitting additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion and not on any new material. The Assessing Officer had already examined the issue and allowed the deduction in the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not applicable as the surrendered amount was disclosed in the return of income and accepted as miscellaneous income by the Assessing Officer. The penalty order was silent on the aspect of undisclosed income, which is a prerequisite for invoking Section 271AAA.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to non-appearance. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and precedents, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to apply his mind while issuing the notice under Section 148, as evidenced by errors in the data presented and treating payments as receipts. The notice was deemed void ab initio.