Loading ITAT cases…
129 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained investment in film financing should be restricted to the income earned, not the entire amount. It also directed that the addition for cash found should be sustained only to the extent of unexplained cash. The addition for jewellery was deleted as it was within prescribed limits and explained by the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to refile if the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme application is not accepted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to present evidence, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was to ensure natural justice, allowing the assessee to present all supporting evidence for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that if a property is purchased in the status of HUF, any addition for unexplained investment should be made in the hands of the HUF. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that cash withdrawn from the bank account should be treated as available for subsequent deposits, a concept known as telescoping. The lower authorities' approach of not allowing this benefit was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee relied on a report from its own statutory auditor for share valuation, which is not permitted. The law requires an independent accountant for valuation, and since this mandatory provision was not followed, the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were correct in rejecting the valuation report.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine by invoking Section 249(4) of the IT Act. It was found that the assessee had no obligation to pay advance tax prior to the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal set aside the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the evidence filed by the assessee. The AO was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide contemporaneous evidence or a list of persons to whom services were rendered, thus not discharging the initial onus under Section 69A. The Assessing Officer's failure to make necessary inquiries rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that cash withdrawn from the bank account should be treated as available for subsequent deposits, a concept known as telescoping. The lower authorities' approach of not allowing this benefit was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that cash withdrawn from the bank account should be treated as available for subsequent deposits, a concept known as telescoping. The lower authorities' approach of not allowing this benefit was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that cash withdrawn from the bank account should be treated as available for subsequent deposits, a concept known as telescoping. The lower authorities' approach of not allowing this benefit was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that cash withdrawn from the bank account should be treated as available for subsequent deposits, a concept known as telescoping. The lower authorities' approach of not allowing this benefit was unjustified.
The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to re-calculate the interest adjustment on receivables from SGB after considering the payables to SGB, and to adopt LIBOR + 200 points with a 45-day credit period for other receivables. The addition on account of capital gains on fixed assets was set aside for reverification, and interest under Section 234A was deleted.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including a sale deed and a gift confirmation from the assessee's father, which explained the source of the cash deposit. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable grounds. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating on merits. The necessary details were already on record, and the CIT(A) should have considered them.
The Tribunal held that a technical or venial breach of law should not result in the denial of deduction, following a High Court precedent. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to consider the Form 10CCB.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by a sufficient cause from producing evidence before the revenue authorities. The impugned order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for consideration of additional evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order on merits without a remand report, and the assessee could not furnish all details to the AO. Therefore, the AO should be given an opportunity to verify the material.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32AD for AY 2016-17, following a previous decision. It also upheld the weighted deduction for clinical trials and the deletion of Section 14A disallowance, as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32AD for AY 2016-17, following a previous decision. It also upheld the weighted deduction for clinical trials and the deletion of Section 14A disallowance, as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32AD for AY 2016-17, following a previous decision. It also upheld the weighted deduction for clinical trials and the deletion of Section 14A disallowance, as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32AD for AY 2016-17, following a previous decision. It also upheld the weighted deduction for clinical trials and the deletion of Section 14A disallowance, as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, considering the tax liability was based on an employer's mistake and not on income accrued to the assessee. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal needs to be reconsidered by the CIT(A) in light of the assessee's averments regarding travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's orders on limitation. The CIT(A) is directed to provide another opportunity to the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's income was solely from agriculture, which is exempt, the cash deposits must have been out of agricultural income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT has the power under Section 263 to direct the AO to enhance the assessment by disallowing unexplained cash deposits. The assessee's objection that the PCIT did not direct the AO to conduct further inquiry or provide a hearing was not found to be a valid ground for interference.