Loading ITAT cases…
62 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to conduct proper inquiry regarding the assessee's entitlement to the full cost of improvement versus their share. Therefore, the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking Section 263.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including booking letters, cancellation requests, and bank statements. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal held that the advance received was genuine and subsequently refunded.
The Tribunal found the ad-hoc disallowances to be on the higher side. It directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of all expenses, including sales promotion, thereby providing relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. Commissioner could not revise the re-assessment order concerning Section 54/54F exemption as this issue was not part of the re-assessment. Furthermore, the revision order was also found to be time-barred if it were intended to revise the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is null and void ab initio, especially when the AO was aware of the demerger and the subsequent existence of new companies. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order.
The Tribunal found that both lower authorities concurrently held that the assessee failed to prove the cost of Rs. 99,20,000/-. However, since the land was purchased, a cost must be incurred and deducted. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's transactions were genuine, supported by documentary evidence, and involved a long holding period of approximately 10 years. The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine evidence relied upon.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the addition was based on the findings of earlier assessment years which had already been deleted by the Tribunal. Since the basis for the addition no longer existed, it could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's transactions were genuine, supported by documentary evidence, and involved a long holding period of approximately 10 years. The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine evidence relied upon.
The Tribunal held that cash payments made as token money for land purchase, where the balance was paid by cheque and the transaction was genuine, did not attract Section 40A(3). It also held that ad-hoc disallowance of director remuneration without determining fair value was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry regarding the applicability of Section 50C and the correctness of the deduction claimed under Section 54B. The assessment order was silent on these crucial issues, indicating a lack of application of mind by the AO.