Loading ITAT cases…
16 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the cash in question belonged to a firm in which the assessee was a partner, and no incriminating evidence was found to suggest the income belonged to the assessee personally.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction under Section 80IB, finding no reason to deviate from previous rulings. The Tribunal also deleted additions made for unexplained cash payment for a flat purchase due to lack of corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction under Section 80IB, finding no reason to deviate from previous rulings. The Tribunal also deleted additions made for unexplained cash payment for a flat purchase due to lack of corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction under Section 80IB, finding no reason to deviate from previous rulings. The Tribunal also deleted additions made for unexplained cash payment for a flat purchase due to lack of corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction under Section 80IB, finding no reason to deviate from previous rulings. The Tribunal also deleted additions made for unexplained cash payment for a flat purchase due to lack of corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction under Section 80IB, finding no reason to deviate from previous rulings. The Tribunal also deleted additions made for unexplained cash payment for a flat purchase due to lack of corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the cash in question belonged to a firm in which the assessee was a partner, and no incriminating evidence was found to suggest the income belonged to the assessee personally.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the cash in question belonged to a firm in which the assessee was a partner, and no incriminating evidence was found to suggest the income belonged to the assessee personally.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction under Section 80IB, finding no reason to deviate from previous rulings. The Tribunal also deleted additions made for unexplained cash payment for a flat purchase due to lack of corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction under Section 80IB, finding no reason to deviate from previous rulings. The Tribunal also deleted additions made for unexplained cash payment for a flat purchase due to lack of corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including quantitative details and confirmations of sale parties, and that the AO had not doubted the sales. The Tribunal noted that adverse inferences cannot be drawn solely on the basis of unserved notices or denials from parties who had collected VAT without depositing it.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had applied his mind and was justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO's assessment order was potentially erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to inadequate inquiry. The assessee's contention of borrowed satisfaction was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the stamp duty valuation as on the date of the agreement to sell should be considered for computing capital gains, following previous judicial pronouncements. The issue was restored to the AO for re-computation.
The Tribunal held that several expenses, including professional consultancy fees, machinery hire charges, power & fuel, ROC fees, and certain business expenses, were revenue in nature and allowable. The processing fee for a business loan, even if not materialized, was also considered a bonafide business expense.
The Tribunal held that a bank pass book or bank statement cannot be considered a 'book' maintained by the assessee for the purposes of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 based on bank deposits is not valid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, following the Supreme Court's judgment. The issue of rejection of registration application by the CIT(Exemption) was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh, reasoned order.