Loading ITAT cases…
227 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adding two zeros to cash receipts without sufficient evidence for all entries. However, the Tribunal upheld the AO's estimation of 16% profit on unaccounted cash receipts, as the assessee failed to justify its lower estimation and the firm's own past profits were higher.
The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 for one assessment year and directed the AO to re-evaluate additions related to cash receipts. For another addition concerning cash payment, the Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of original signed receipts.
The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 for one assessment year and directed the AO to re-evaluate additions related to cash receipts. For another addition concerning cash payment, the Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of original signed receipts.
The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 for one assessment year and directed the AO to re-evaluate additions related to cash receipts. For another addition concerning cash payment, the Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of original signed receipts.
The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 for one assessment year and directed the AO to re-evaluate additions related to cash receipts. For another addition concerning cash payment, the Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of original signed receipts.
The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 for one assessment year and directed the AO to re-evaluate additions related to cash receipts. For another addition concerning cash payment, the Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of original signed receipts.
The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 for one assessment year and directed the AO to re-evaluate additions related to cash receipts. For another addition concerning cash payment, the Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of original signed receipts.
The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 for one assessment year and directed the AO to re-evaluate additions related to cash receipts. For another addition concerning cash payment, the Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of original signed receipts.
The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 for one assessment year and directed the AO to re-evaluate additions related to cash receipts. For another addition concerning cash payment, the Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of original signed receipts.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adding two zeros to cash receipts without sufficient evidence for all entries. However, the Tribunal upheld the AO's estimation of 16% profit on unaccounted cash receipts, as the assessee failed to justify its lower estimation and the firm's own past profits were higher.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adding two zeros to cash receipts without sufficient evidence for all entries. However, the Tribunal upheld the AO's estimation of 16% profit on unaccounted cash receipts, as the assessee failed to justify its lower estimation and the firm's own past profits were higher.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adding two zeros to cash receipts without sufficient evidence for all entries. However, the Tribunal upheld the AO's estimation of 16% profit on unaccounted cash receipts, as the assessee failed to justify its lower estimation and the firm's own past profits were higher.
The Tribunal, taking a lenient view, allowed one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required details and documentary evidence. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the additions were made solely on the basis of a statement without corroborating evidence. The Tribunal noted that the source of funds for interest payment was the fresh loan itself, and the lender did not offer corresponding interest income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the additions were made solely on the basis of a statement without corroborating evidence. The Tribunal noted that the source of funds for interest payment was the fresh loan itself, and the lender did not offer corresponding interest income.
The Tribunal allowed the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer due to a time-barred re-assessment order. It also remanded the issue of depreciation disallowance for verification of supporting bills.
The Tribunal allowed the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer due to a time-barred re-assessment order. It also remanded the issue of depreciation disallowance for verification of supporting bills.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report for scientific research deduction was a procedural lapse and not fatal to the claim. It also found that advances to suppliers, which were later adjusted against purchases, could not be treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-production of evidence to be bonafide and reasonable. The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that while the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was justified, the AO should compute the admissible deduction under Section 44C if the expenses fall within its scope. The initiation of penalty proceedings was deemed premature.
The tribunal dismissed ground No. 2 as not pressed. For ground No. 3, regarding short-term capital gains, the tribunal noted that the AO added the entire sale consideration without considering the cost of acquisition and remanded the issue to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee firm had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by demonstrating the nature and source of the credit entry, which was capital introduced by the partner. The partner's sale of land to Microsoft Corporation Ltd. was accepted as the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee firm had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by demonstrating the nature and source of the credit entry, which was capital introduced by the partner. The partner's sale of land to Microsoft Corporation Ltd. was accepted as the source of funds.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the additions were made solely on the basis of a statement without corroborating evidence. The Tribunal noted that the source of funds for interest payment was the fresh loan itself, and the lender did not offer corresponding interest income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the additions were made solely on the basis of a statement without corroborating evidence. The Tribunal noted that the source of funds for interest payment was the fresh loan itself, and the lender did not offer corresponding interest income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the additions were made solely on the basis of a statement without corroborating evidence. The Tribunal noted that the source of funds for interest payment was the fresh loan itself, and the lender did not offer corresponding interest income.
The Tribunal considered the submission of the assessee's Authorized Representative and the non-objection from the Department's Senior Departmental Representative. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.