Loading ITAT cases…
80 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the amount advanced to M/s. Rashmi Enterprises, which was found to be a non-existent concern, constituted unexplained money. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circulars clarifying the time for filing returns under section 139(4) and 139(4A) for claiming exemptions under section 11 and 12 were not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of salary expenditure based on a percentage of turnover compared to sister concerns was unreasonable. It also found that the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding the sale of debtors at a discount, and the transaction was a prudent business decision.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in similar cases, restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the judgments cited by both parties.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of salary expenditure based on a comparative percentage of turnover with sister concerns was not justifiable. It also found that the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding the sale of debtors at a discount, making the transaction a prudent business decision.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee demonstrated the availability of cash from explained sources, no addition can be made under Section 69A. Since the Revenue accepted the withdrawal of Rs. 25 lakhs and subsequent deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs, the addition was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that due to the ongoing CIRP and the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the pending appeals could not be proceeded with. The claims not part of the resolution plan would stand extinguished upon its approval.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, restoring the issue of shortfall in declared income to the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2018-19. For agricultural income, the disallowance was restricted to 10% of the income, following previous years' precedents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions for unexplained cash credits and loans, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for statistical purposes regarding other issues.
The Tribunal held that the cumulative shareholding of the same group of entities remained above 51% even after the change in pattern. Therefore, Section 79 was not violated, and the carry forward of losses was permissible.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly examined the discrepancies in purchases and interest income, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. However, the PCIT's specific directions for recomputation were modified.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal. For unexplained cash credits, the addition related to Sree Minerals was deleted, but the issue concerning Sri T. Subba Rao was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Regarding short-term capital gains, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify claims of double taxation and adjudicate afresh.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions for unexplained cash credits and loans, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for statistical purposes regarding other issues.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, restoring the issue of shortfall in declared income to the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2018-19. For agricultural income, the disallowance was restricted to 10% of the income, following previous years' precedents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the fault of their authorized representative, especially considering the assessee is a senior citizen. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to grant one opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs.1,75,700/- as savings for aged parents, considering it a reasonable amount for their security and medical expenses. The remaining addition of Rs.6,26,500/- was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the audited accounts.
The tribunal held that continuance of pending proceedings against the corporate debtor is prohibited during the moratorium period. Parties must work out their remedies before the Adjudicating Authority under the Code.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with during the CIRP. The appeals were dismissed in limine, with liberty to seek restoration if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with during the CIRP. The appeals were dismissed in limine, with liberty to seek restoration if necessitated by the CIRP outcome.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with during the CIRP. The appeals were dismissed in limine, with liberty to seek restoration if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with during the CIRP.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with during the CIRP. The appeals were dismissed in limine, with liberty to seek restoration if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's initial admission of liability and subsequent retraction due to alleged fraud by vendees, with the matter being sub judice, requires further examination. The case was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below doubted the creditworthiness of the source of HICSPL, which was beyond the assessee's initial burden. It was deemed necessary to admit additional evidence to verify the creditworthiness of HICSPL and its transactions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's initial admission to pay tax on capital gains was significant. The subsequent retraction due to alleged fraud by vendees and ongoing legal proceedings did not negate the initial acknowledgement of the transaction's taxability.
The Tribunal found that while some evidence of genuineness was provided, the creditworthiness of the lenders was not fully established. The Assessing Officer had also noted that genuineness was proved only to some extent. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions made by the Assessing Officer for loss on sale of scrap and obsolescence of stores. Provisions for obsolescence of stores were disallowed as they were not quantified scientifically and lacked reversal entries.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions made by the Assessing Officer for loss on sale of scrap and obsolescence of stores. Provisions for obsolescence of stores were disallowed as they were not quantified scientifically and lacked reversal entries.