Loading ITAT cases…
110 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine reasons. The ex-parte orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining the additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of bank deposits.
The Tribunal held that the fact that a refund cheque from the jeweller, arising from the same transaction, was deposited in the assessee's bank account establishes a direct nexus between the assessee and the transaction. Therefore, the cash payment could not be considered as not pertaining to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2016-17, the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the core issue of goodwill computation method, remanding it for re-adjudication. For AY 2020-21, issues involving additional evidence without a remand report were remanded, while an issue on ESOP provision was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) due to the consistent non-compliance and failure of the assessee to discharge its burden of proof. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoned order.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) due to the consistent non-compliance and failure of the assessee to discharge its burden of proof. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny without proper authorization, making the assessment order void. It also found that deposits from partners into the firm's account, which were declared by partners in their ITRs, could not be treated as the firm's business income.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2016-17, the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the core issue of goodwill computation method, remanding it for re-adjudication. For AY 2020-21, issues involving additional evidence without a remand report were remanded, while an issue on ESOP provision was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) due to the consistent non-compliance and failure of the assessee to discharge its burden of proof. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoned order.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) due to the consistent non-compliance and failure of the assessee to discharge its burden of proof. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was barred by limitation and was not maintainable due to the unexplained delay and the assessee's failure to appear or provide any justification.