Loading ITAT cases…
63 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the differences in bank credits and book receipts were explained by capital receipts and other non-revenue items. The CIT(A) also held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not applicable as investments were in share application money.
The Tribunal found that bank records showed the amounts were drawn by cheque in the name of the assessee's mother. Since the sources of the funds were proven to be from the mother, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 148 was rightly annulled by the CIT(A) as it was based on the Section 153C assessment, which was made on a wrong person. The reasons for reopening did not pertain to the assessee's documents, making the notice invalid.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of travelling expenses was unjustified as the assessee, being a PSU involved in international trade, provided sufficient details of foreign travel for business purposes. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee had not earned any exempt income.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for verification of shareholding period and details of the amount received from M.P. Golyan (HUF), directing the assessee to cooperate with the AO.