Loading ITAT cases…
116 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations and evidence regarding the nature and source of the credits in his bank account, and did not produce the concerned parties for verification. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations and evidence regarding the nature and source of the credits in his bank account, and did not produce the concerned parties for verification. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was justified.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices and the AO's reliance on best judgment assessment due to lack of response. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that purchases were made through banking channels and some evidence was submitted. However, due to the non-production of certain documents and the supplier being a hawala dealer, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt 10% of the gross profit on the disputed amount.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence to controvert the Assessing Officer's findings regarding the payment for land purchase. Therefore, the addition of unexplained investment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order did not specify which particulars filed by the assessee were inaccurate, and mere addition to income does not automatically entail penalty. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the reopening of assessment. The assessee had inspected the records and found the sanction for reopening to be in order, thus waiving any objection regarding non-supply of a copy of the approval.
The tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the return filed under section 153A is to be treated as a return filed under section 139. Therefore, the brought forward business loss determined in the immediately preceding year is available for set off against the current year's income declared in the section 153A return.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54B, which restricted its applicability to HUFs, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2006-07. The Tribunal also upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, finding no infirmity in the AO's reasons.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing TDS statements was a technical default, not a venial one, especially when TDS was deposited on time. Therefore, no penalty was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was valid as notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and responded to. It also ruled that the assessment in individual hands was correct as there was no evidence of an Association of Persons (AoP) status for the land purchase. Finally, the addition of 'on money' was upheld due to the failure of the assessee to disprove the vendors' statements.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was valid as notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and responded to. It also upheld the assessment in individual hands, not as an Association of Persons (AoP), and confirmed the addition of 'on money' as there was conclusive evidence from vendors and the assessee failed to offer an explanation.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54B, which restricted its applicability to HUFs, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2006-07. The Tribunal also upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, finding no infirmity in the AO's reasons.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the appeal had become infructuous, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was valid as notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and responded to. It also upheld the assessment in individual hands, not as an Association of Persons (AoP), and confirmed the addition of 'on money' as there was conclusive evidence from vendors and the assessee failed to offer an explanation.