Loading ITAT cases…
70 orders · Page 1 of 2
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in part, dismissing the revenue's appeals. Specific additions were deleted, and others were confirmed based on the evidence and explanations provided.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add only the gross profit on the shortage of stock, rather than the entire stock value. The appeals concerning cash availability additions were also addressed.
The Tribunal held that a lumpsum ad-hoc trading addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- confirmed by the CIT(A) was unjustified, especially when the assessee's G.P. rate had improved compared to the previous year. The Tribunal also noted that the rejection of books of accounts without specific deficiencies was against the mandate.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was perverse as there was no specific adverse finding against the genuineness of the expenditure. It noted that the expenses were duly supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the LLPs.
The Tribunal held that the stock difference was not undisclosed income under Section 69A as it was explained as goods with job workers. Regarding unaccounted sales, only the net profit element should be taxed, not the entire sales amount.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to disprove the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee and made the addition based on suspicion, which is not sustainable. The CIT(A)'s order was also found to be perverse.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was perverse as there was no specific adverse finding against the genuineness of the expenditure. It noted that the expenses were duly supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the LLPs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the deduction. It ruled that the assessee qualified as a primary cooperative society and that the principle of consistency, supported by previous years' allowances and withdrawn departmental appeals, should be followed.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's Section 154 application was perverse, considering the EPFO's circular granting relaxation from penalties for delayed deposits during the COVID-19 pandemic. The issue was also noted as debatable and pending before the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee complied with the conditions for deduction under Section 80IB(11A). The conversion of a firm to a company is a succession, not reconstruction, and does not affect the deduction. Procedural defects do not override substantive eligibility.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified as it was based on a mere presumption from an excel sheet found at a third party's premises. The AO failed to establish a direct nexus between the seized material and the assessee, and no opportunity was given to reconcile discrepancies.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in treating loan repayments as unexplained receipts under Section 68 without properly considering the evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted a violation of natural justice due to the lack of an effective opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal held that interest income received by a cooperative society from another cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The disallowance by the CIT(A) was considered perverse and against the law.
The Tribunal held that the unsecured loans were genuine and the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were unjustified. Consequently, the disallowance of interest paid on these loans was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the unsecured loans were genuine and the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were unjustified. Consequently, the disallowance of interest paid on these loans was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the unsecured loans were genuine and the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were unjustified. Consequently, the disallowance of interest paid on these loans was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was perverse as there was no specific adverse finding against the genuineness of the expenditure. It noted that the expenses were duly supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the LLPs.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was perverse as there was no specific adverse finding against the genuineness of the expenditure. It noted that the expenses were duly supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the LLPs.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was perverse as there was no specific adverse finding against the genuineness of the expenditure. It noted that the expenses were duly supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the LLPs.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was perverse as there was no specific adverse finding against the genuineness of the expenditure. It noted that the expenses were duly supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the LLPs.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was perverse as there was no specific adverse finding against the genuineness of the expenditure. It noted that the expenses were duly supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the LLPs.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was perverse as there was no specific adverse finding against the genuineness of the expenditure. It noted that the expenses were duly supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the LLPs.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was perverse as there was no specific adverse finding against the genuineness of the expenditure. It noted that the expenses were duly supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the LLPs.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was perverse as there was no specific adverse finding against the genuineness of the expenditure. It noted that the expenses were duly supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the LLPs.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected the appeal on a technical ground without examining the merits or granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee has a good arguable case on the merits regarding additions to paid-up capital, salary, and audit fee.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) acted arbitrarily without appreciating the facts and evidence. The Tribunal found that complete details of creditors and wage payments were furnished, and the income of workers was below the taxable limit, thus deleting the additions.
The Tribunal held that a lumpsum ad-hoc trading addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- confirmed by the CIT(A) was unjustified, especially when the assessee's G.P. rate had improved compared to the previous year. The Tribunal also noted that the rejection of books of accounts without specific deficiencies was against the mandate.
The Tribunal held that a lumpsum ad-hoc trading addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- confirmed by the CIT(A) was unjustified, especially when the assessee's G.P. rate had improved compared to the previous year. The Tribunal also noted that the rejection of books of accounts without specific deficiencies was against the mandate.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in part, dismissing the revenue's appeals. Specific additions were deleted, and others were confirmed based on the evidence and explanations provided.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in part, dismissing the revenue's appeals. Specific additions were deleted, and others were confirmed based on the evidence and explanations provided.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in part, dismissing the revenue's appeals. Specific additions were deleted, and others were confirmed based on the evidence and explanations provided.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in part, dismissing the revenue's appeals. Specific additions were deleted, and others were confirmed based on the evidence and explanations provided.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in part, dismissing the revenue's appeals. Specific additions were deleted, and others were confirmed based on the evidence and explanations provided.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in part, dismissing the revenue's appeals. Specific additions were deleted, and others were confirmed based on the evidence and explanations provided.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in part, dismissing the revenue's appeals. Specific additions were deleted, and others were confirmed based on the evidence and explanations provided.
The Tribunal held that the unsecured loans were genuine and the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were unjustified. Consequently, the disallowance of interest paid on these loans was also deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add only the gross profit on the shortage of stock, rather than the entire stock value. The appeals concerning cash availability additions were also addressed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add only the gross profit on the shortage of stock, rather than the entire stock value. The appeals concerning cash availability additions were also addressed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add only the gross profit on the shortage of stock, rather than the entire stock value. The appeals concerning cash availability additions were also addressed.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, confirming that the assessee was liable for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194IA for the purchase of immovable property exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs. The assessee's plea of ignorance of law was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that 'Phuwar' was only defined as minor forest produce by the State Government in 2015. Therefore, the assessee could not be held liable for TCS collection before that date. The additions and interest were deleted.
The Tribunal held that 'Phuwar' was only defined as minor forest produce by the State Government in 2015. Therefore, the assessee could not be held liable for TCS collection before that date. The additions and interest were deleted.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application without giving the assessee an opportunity to rebut the inspector's report violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application without giving the assessee an opportunity to rebut the inspector's report violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of registration, the CIT(E) should not have examined the genuineness of activities. The assessee had provided explanations and supporting documents for payments made to specified persons.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of registration, the CIT(E) should not have examined the genuineness of activities. The assessee had provided explanations and supporting documents for payments made to specified persons.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, which fell below the threshold prescribed by the CBDT circular. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on this ground.
The Tribunal held that issuing notices and passing assessment orders in the name of a deceased person, even with knowledge of their death, renders the entire proceedings illegal and void ab initio. This is not a technical defect curable under Section 292BB.
The Tribunal held that 'Phuwar' was only defined as minor forest produce by the State Government in 2015. Therefore, the assessee could not be held liable for TCS collection before that date. The additions and interest were deleted.
The Tribunal held that issuing notices and passing assessment orders in the name of a deceased person, even with knowledge of their death, renders the entire proceedings illegal and void ab initio. This is not a technical defect curable under Section 292BB.