Loading ITAT cases…
9 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed in their responsibilities by not thoroughly examining all impounded documents and providing proper opportunities. Therefore, the matter was set aside for de-novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed in their responsibilities by not thoroughly examining all impounded documents and providing proper opportunities. Therefore, the matter was set aside for de-novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed in their responsibilities by not thoroughly examining all impounded documents and providing proper opportunities. Therefore, the matter was set aside for de-novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the AO rejected the books of accounts and made estimations based on surmises and conjectures without specific defects or supporting material. The addition of Rs. 30 lakhs was also unsustainable without corroborating evidence.
The Tribunal held that the land sold was a capital asset as the assessee himself declared capital gains. The Tribunal also upheld the VO's valuation and the addition of cash deposits due to lack of explanation from the assessee.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of commission and brokerage. This was because the lower appellate authority had already deleted the bogus purchases, and there was no specific discussion of the commission payments in the assessment order or any enhancement notice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not a regular dealer in shares and had not indulged in any adventure in the nature of trade. Therefore, the profit from the sale of shares should be treated as capital gains.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not fully support its claimed net profit rate. Considering the AO's estimation and previous assessment years, the Tribunal decided to estimate a lump-sum net profit rate of 4.5%.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash credits, finding that the assessee failed to prove the source of the deposits or their connection to business sales. The lower authorities' decision was therefore confirmed.