Loading ITAT cases…
22 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s orders did not consider the intervening developments, specifically the assessee's conviction. Therefore, the matter needed re-examination on merits by the CIT(A) in light of the penal law developments.
The Tribunal upheld the addition, finding that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the difference in investment amounts, even after a remand report was sought. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The assessee's counsel stated that the assessee no longer wished to press the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s orders did not consider the intervening developments, specifically the assessee's conviction. Therefore, the matter needed re-examination on merits by the CIT(A) in light of the penal law developments.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It found that the business promotional expenses were sufficiently substantiated with vouchers and explained as being for business purposes. Regarding the building, the Tribunal distinguished between original cost and current market value, accepting the assessee's original cost as reflected in their books.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the investments were made by the assessee's group companies or partnership firms and were duly accounted for. The agricultural income and interest disallowances were also found to be correctly deleted.
The Tribunal held that income from property letting by a real estate company, as per its MOA and actual activity, should be treated as business income. It also confirmed the deletion of additions related to share capital, finding the creditor's identity and creditworthiness proved, and deleted the parking fee addition as an ad-hoc disallowance without rejecting books of account.
The Tribunal found that the brothers' returns were filed after the department's inquiry, suggesting they were an afterthought. However, it acknowledged some cash-in-hand for the brothers and reduced the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the investments were made by the assessee's group companies or partnership firms and were duly accounted for. The agricultural income and interest disallowances were also found to be correctly deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the investments were made by the assessee's group companies or partnership firms and were duly accounted for. The agricultural income and interest disallowances were also found to be correctly deleted.
The Tribunal held that income from property letting by a real estate company, as per its MOA and actual activity, should be treated as business income. It also confirmed the deletion of additions related to share capital, finding the creditor's identity and creditworthiness proved, and deleted the parking fee addition as an ad-hoc disallowance without rejecting books of account.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s orders did not consider the intervening developments, specifically the assessee's conviction. Therefore, the matter needed re-examination on merits by the CIT(A) in light of the penal law developments.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of applicability of section 40A(3) disallowance for cash purchases was not raised before the lower appellate authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for factual verification, acknowledging that if the buyers had already paid the tax, the assessee could not be held liable as an assessee in default. The decision was based on the principle that the liability is vicarious.
The Tribunal deleted additions under Section 68, finding the receipts genuine but exceeding the exemption threshold. It also directed deletion of the Section 40(A)(2) disallowance, stating no market rate comparison was made. The depreciation claim was allowed based on beneficial ownership.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for factual verification, acknowledging that if the buyers had already paid the tax, the assessee could not be held liable as an assessee in default. The decision was based on the principle that the liability is vicarious.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for factual verification, acknowledging that if the buyers had already paid the tax, the assessee could not be held liable as an assessee in default. The decision was based on the principle that the liability is vicarious.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for factual verification, acknowledging that if the buyers had already paid the tax, the assessee could not be held liable as an assessee in default. The decision was based on the principle that the liability is vicarious.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for factual verification, acknowledging that if the buyers had already paid the tax, the assessee could not be held liable as an assessee in default. The decision was based on the principle that the liability is vicarious.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for factual verification, acknowledging that if the buyers had already paid the tax, the assessee could not be held liable as an assessee in default. The decision was based on the principle that the liability is vicarious.
The Tribunal deleted additions under Section 68, finding the receipts genuine but exceeding the exemption threshold. It also directed deletion of the Section 40(A)(2) disallowance, stating no market rate comparison was made. The depreciation claim was allowed based on beneficial ownership.
The Tribunal held that neither the CPC nor the CIT(A) had properly considered the assessee's grievance regarding the Section 11(2) exemption benefit. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for adjudication.