Loading ITAT cases…
156 tribunal orders from the Nagpur bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 156 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor, and genuineness of the transaction. The AO had failed to disprove the evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had passed a well-reasoned order. The Tribunal concluded that there was no excess jewellery found and therefore no addition under Section 69 was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor, and genuineness of the transaction. The AO had failed to disprove the evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was without basis, especially since the land deal could not be materialized due to the property falling under a 'No Development Green Zone' and the seller denying receipt of further cash payments.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had passed a well-reasoned order. The Tribunal concluded that there was no excess jewellery found and therefore no addition under Section 69 was warranted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. It noted that similar additions for earlier years were deleted by the ITAT and that the AO had not rejected books or found unaccounted sales/purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition based solely on the unverifiable document B/4, especially when primary evidence (B-1 and B-2) showed interest rates within the prescribed limits and no other incriminating material was found.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition based solely on the unverifiable document B/4, especially when primary evidence (B-1 and B-2) showed interest rates within the prescribed limits and no other incriminating material was found.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was without basis, especially since the land deal could not be materialized due to the property falling under a 'No Development Green Zone' and the seller denying receipt of further cash payments.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had passed a well-reasoned order. The Tribunal concluded that there was no excess jewellery found and therefore no addition under Section 69 was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor, and genuineness of the transaction. The AO had failed to disprove the evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition based solely on the unverifiable document B/4, especially when primary evidence (B-1 and B-2) showed interest rates within the prescribed limits and no other incriminating material was found.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor, and genuineness of the transaction. The AO had failed to disprove the evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor, and genuineness of the transaction. The AO had failed to disprove the evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified due to a lack of clear findings by the Assessing Officer regarding concealment or inaccurate particulars. The penalty under Section 271AAB was also quashed as it was not mandatory and the notice was defective.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had passed a well-reasoned order. The Tribunal concluded that there was no excess jewellery found and therefore no addition under Section 69 was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition based solely on the unverifiable document B/4, especially when primary evidence (B-1 and B-2) showed interest rates within the prescribed limits and no other incriminating material was found.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition based solely on the unverifiable document B/4, especially when primary evidence (B-1 and B-2) showed interest rates within the prescribed limits and no other incriminating material was found.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had passed a well-reasoned order. The Tribunal concluded that there was no excess jewellery found and therefore no addition under Section 69 was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified due to a lack of clear findings by the Assessing Officer regarding concealment or inaccurate particulars. The penalty under Section 271AAB was also quashed as it was not mandatory and the notice was defective.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. On merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the return filed belatedly but within the extended time under Section 139(4) should be considered sufficient compliance for Section 80AC. For the second issue regarding the completion certificate, the matter was remanded to the AO for reconsideration based on architect's certificate and other evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had passed a well-reasoned order. The Tribunal concluded that there was no excess jewellery found and therefore no addition under Section 69 was warranted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had passed a well-reasoned order. The Tribunal concluded that there was no excess jewellery found and therefore no addition under Section 69 was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition based solely on the unverifiable document B/4, especially when primary evidence (B-1 and B-2) showed interest rates within the prescribed limits and no other incriminating material was found.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the Jilaba software's '<salvalue>' column did not represent the purchase price and that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and clarifications. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's regular books of accounts were not rejected and that stock was verified by a bank.
The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that while unrealizable MVAT credit is revenue in nature and its non-realization results in a loss, the crystallization of the liability needs to be proven. As there was no material to demonstrate this crystallization, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that no penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) when the income is assessed on an estimated basis. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.