Loading ITAT cases…
78 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that Section 153C assessments can only be initiated if incriminating material is found during a search. It also found that returns filed under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, were valid, and a newly opened bank account could not be considered undisclosed income. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the creditors never appeared before the Assessing Officer despite summons, and their bank accounts showed immediate cash deposits before transfers. However, it also acknowledged that assessments for the creditors were completed under Section 143(3) accepting their returned income. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 153C assessments can only be initiated if incriminating material is found during a search. It also found that returns filed under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, were valid, and a newly opened bank account could not be considered undisclosed income. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that similar appeals filed by the revenue for various assessment years, including the impugned year, had been restored to the file of the AO for de novo examination. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the assessee's grounds to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the husband's statement alone, without corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis for making additions to the assessee's income. Furthermore, the notice u/s 143(2) was issued on the same day the return was filed, indicating a lack of application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54 was not substantiated as the scheme of property purchase was not similar to DDA's self-financing scheme and the unutilized amount was not deposited in a bank account. The Tribunal also rejected the argument regarding lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 for cash credits requires further verification of the assessee's sales pattern. It dismissed the grounds related to EPF/ESI disallowance, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of foreign exchange fluctuation expenditure.
The Tribunal held that Section 153C assessments can only be initiated if incriminating material is found during a search. It also found that returns filed under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, were valid, and a newly opened bank account could not be considered undisclosed income. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 for cash credits requires further verification of the assessee's sales pattern. It dismissed the grounds related to EPF/ESI disallowance, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of foreign exchange fluctuation expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the lower authorities. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked revisionary powers under Section 263, holding the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to failure to examine the significant difference in receipts. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order.
The tribunal found the CIT(Appeals) order to be non-speaking and lacking factual discussion. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate her claim that the salary income was inadvertently offered under the head 'business income'. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the evidence.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as the issue had been resolved by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The tribunal noted that the issues had become academic due to an order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The NCLT approved a resolution plan which stated that all income tax proceedings and liabilities against the assessee could not be proceeded with and no demand was enforceable.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as the issue had been resolved by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as the issue had been resolved by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as the issue had been resolved by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate his claim that the salary income was inadvertently offered as business income. The Assessing Officer is to decide the issue afresh after considering the evidence and providing a hearing.
The Tribunal found that the adjustment was made by the CPC without considering the assessee's response within the statutory period. In the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor are prohibited. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not addressed all the issues raised by both the assessee and the Assessing Officer regarding the validity of reassessment and the claim for deduction under Section 10B. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made enquiries and applied his mind before passing the assessment order, even if his view differed from the PCIT's. Since the issue was already examined by the AO, the PCIT's invocation of section 263 was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the issue was pending before the CIT(A), making the PCIT's action premature.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the source of the seized cash. The addition was to be decided afresh based on the evidence provided.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, including land purchase deeds and affidavits, which had a bearing on the creditors' creditworthiness. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Therefore, the appeal cannot be proceeded with during the CIRP. The appeal is dismissed in limine, with leave to seek restoration if necessitated by the CIRP outcome.