Loading ITAT cases…
161 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to present its case and furnish required details and evidence. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the case afresh on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order violated Section 250(6) by not deciding the issue on merit. In the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the amount was indeed an advance against shares and not sundry creditors. Therefore, there was no cessation of liability, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were made in the ordinary course of business, supported by the assessee's business activities and commission income. Therefore, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the addition of share capital, finding no reason to interfere with the authorities' findings due to lack of assessee's cooperation. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the Section 14A disallowance, deleting it as the assessee earned no exempt income.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply with notices from the AO and CIT(A) due to unavoidable reasons. Considering the plea for restoration, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of depreciation as the assessee failed to provide evidence that the assets were put to use during the year. The assessee also failed to appear before the Tribunal to substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had provided sufficient details and documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court's decision in NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the amendment denying set off of loss against income under Section 68 was effective from April 1, 2017, and thus, set off was permissible for the assessment years in question. The Tribunal also deleted additions made under Section 40A(2)(b) and Section 14A, and for outstanding advances.
The Tribunal held that the amendment denying set off of loss against income under Section 68 was effective from April 1, 2017, and thus, set off was permissible for the assessment years in question. The Tribunal also deleted additions made under Section 40A(2)(b) and Section 14A, and for outstanding advances.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to appear and provide any submissions or evidence before any of the authorities, despite repeated opportunities. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.