Loading ITAT cases…
59 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided details of brokerage income and had shown it in his return before the due date. Therefore, Section 69A was not applicable, and the income should be treated as regular income.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not adduce sufficient evidence to treat the income under Section 69A. Since the assessee was not maintaining books of account and had opted for Section 44AD, the net profit as per Section 44AD should be estimated, not the entire turnover.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's sales register, which was not discarded by the lower authorities, should be accepted. Since the assessee is not maintaining books of account and opted for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, the net profit as per Section 44AD should be accepted, not the entire turnover as unexplained money.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had allowed the revised loss claim without proper examination of the allowability of deductions and verification of arithmetical errors. Therefore, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of substantial justice, set aside the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the case afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present its submissions.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, effective from June 1, 2015, has prospective effect. Therefore, no demand for fees under Section 234E could be made for TDS statements processed prior to this date.
The assessee stated that the fresh assessment order was acceptable and requested to withdraw the present appeal. The revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, effective from June 1, 2015, has prospective effect. Therefore, no demand for fees under Section 234E could be made for TDS statements processed prior to this date.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal in light of the order issued under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue did not object to this withdrawal.