Loading ITAT cases…
12 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding no infirmity in the appellate order. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections challenging the reassessment order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding no infirmity in the appellate order. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections challenging the reassessment order.
The Tribunal restored the issue of leave encashment provision to the Assessing Officer for adjudication as per the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances for software, commission, and warranty expenses, finding no justification for the Assessing Officer's actions.
The Tribunal restored the issue of leave encashment provision to the Assessing Officer for adjudication as per the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances for software, commission, and warranty expenses, finding no justification for the Assessing Officer's actions.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on suspicion and lacked concrete evidence of collusion. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents stating that the assessee should not be punished for the default of a broker or on mere suspicion when transactions are supported by documentation and payments are through account payee cheques.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue of leave encashment provision to the Assessing Officer for adjudication as per the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances for software, commission, and warranty expenses, finding no justification for the Assessing Officer's actions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO's reasons for reopening were vague and based on borrowed satisfaction, lacking independent application of mind. The CIT(A)'s order upholding this technical ground was confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding no infirmity in the appellate order. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections challenging the reassessment order.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a decision on merits. The assessee was directed to inform the CIT(A) of the address change and appear for proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the LTCG claim based on suspicion and conjecture without concrete evidence. It noted that previous Tribunal decisions had held KAFL scrips as not bogus and that SEBI had withdrawn its earlier restrictive order.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to plead their case before the CIT(A).