Loading ITAT cases…
461 orders · Page 3 of 10
The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation available on April 1, 2002, is to be dealt with as per the amended Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows indefinite carry forward. The Gujarat High Court's decision in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. was followed.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO, holding that no incriminating material was found belonging to the assessee during the search. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on its prior order for AY 2007-08.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that the AO failed to discharge the onus to prove that the apparent purchases were not real. The assessee had provided documentary evidence, and the AO did not verify these or ask for the stock register.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had made payments by account payee cheques and the sales were not disputed, the purchases could not be presumed to be bogus solely because suppliers were not found or did not appear. The AO did not conduct sufficient investigation.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had made payments by account payee cheques and the sales were not disputed, the purchases could not be presumed to be bogus solely because suppliers were not found or did not appear. The AO did not conduct sufficient investigation.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct sufficient investigation to prove the purchases were not made, especially since payments were made by account payee cheques and sales were not disputed. Therefore, the addition should be restricted to the profit element.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence and adjudicating on submissions not confronted to the AO. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal, following a previous decision, directed the Assessing Officer to take 8% of the Gross Profit (GP) instead of the initially added 12.5% of purchases. This implies a partial disallowance of purchases.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh. This was based on the assessee's submission that the issue was covered by a previous tribunal decision and the revenue's no objection.