Loading ITAT cases…
59 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that subsidies received after the commencement of business, intended to assist in carrying out business operations, are revenue receipts. The purpose of the subsidy, whether for setting up a business or for running it, is crucial in determining its nature.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide the assessee with an opportunity to determine the fair market value as per the prescribed methods. Furthermore, the CIT(A) passed the order without giving the assessee a chance to file written submissions, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s reasons for rejection were not valid. The receipts from parents were considered voluntary contributions, payments to individuals were reimbursements, and the timing issue was due to a date format confusion.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s reasons for rejection were not valid. The receipts from parents were considered voluntary contributions, payments to individuals were reimbursements, and the timing issue was due to a date format confusion.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition under Section 68 was infirm and perverse as it contradicted his own observations. For the addition under Section 69C, there was a lack of clarity regarding seized documents and conflicting claims by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was not valid. The AO was aware of the surrender and had taken steps to examine it during the assessment. Furthermore, additions cannot be made based solely on a survey surrender without tangible evidence, and the AO rightly refrained from making additions in this case.
The Tribunal held that the minor variations in the assessee's submissions, given her age and the best of her memory, should not lead to a hyper-technical view. The Tribunal found that the withdrawal and redeposit of funds through bearer cheques given to her sons was not disputed, and the intention to purchase a plot, even without documentary evidence of a completed transaction, was a plausible explanation for keeping the money. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO had conducted a proper inquiry and taken a possible view on debatable issues. The revisionary order was found unsustainable.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had inadvertently filed for fresh registration instead of renewal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.