Loading ITAT cases…
171 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment as there were sufficient reasons to believe income had escaped assessment. However, the grounds on merits regarding the nature of the cash deposits were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the 40% disallowance to be on the higher side. Considering the nature of the business and the assessee's bona-fide intention, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 20% of the impugned expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and the assessee's rights were not adjudicated. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal granted the assessees an opportunity to be heard, considering their right to appeal and payment of appeal fees. All issues were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the right of appeal is statutory and the assessees demonstrated seriousness in pursuing their appeals. Therefore, an opportunity of being heard should be granted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the issue of tangible material for reopening the assessment, as directed in a previous round of proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that in cases where the assessee can establish the trail of goods and its consumption or onward sale, the entire bogus purchases cannot be added. However, an estimation of 10% of the alleged bogus purchases should be made over and above the net profit shown.
The Tribunal granted the assessees an opportunity to be heard, considering their right to appeal and payment of appeal fees. All issues were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that in cases where the assessee can establish the trail of goods and its consumption or onward sale, the entire bogus purchases cannot be added. However, an estimation of 10% of the alleged bogus purchases should be made over and above the net profit shown.
The Tribunal held that the right of appeal is statutory and the assessees demonstrated seriousness in pursuing their appeals. Therefore, an opportunity of being heard should be granted.
The Tribunal held that the right of appeal is statutory and the assessees demonstrated seriousness in pursuing their appeals. Therefore, an opportunity of being heard should be granted.
The Tribunal held that the right of appeal is statutory and the assessees demonstrated seriousness in pursuing their appeals. Therefore, an opportunity of being heard should be granted.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition under Section 40A(2)(a), following its previous year's order. It also directed to apply a GP rate of 0.63% for the assessee's appeal, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence showing the land was granted as 'Inam' via SANAD, implying no cost of acquisition. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the documents and recompute capital gains.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for professional charges, service charges, director's remuneration, and interest payments, finding them similar to prior year's facts where similar additions were deleted. For foreign travel expenses, the Tribunal noted that only employees/directors travelled for business and no family members accompanied them, thus upholding the deletion.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271D for the violation of Section 269SS. In the absence of any explanation from the assessee, the authorities' view was considered reasonable.
The Tribunal held that denying the deduction solely based on the 7/12 extract without physical verification was not appropriate. Additional evidence submitted by the assessee required verification.
The Tribunal held that the 'rule of consistency' must be maintained and that the ruling of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal should be followed. Therefore, the assessee was considered a developer eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the second notice for reassessment was validly issued, and the AO was justified in adopting the FMV of the property at Rs. 400 per sq. mtr. based on the Ready Reckoner and a co-seller's valuation, finding the assessee's valuer's report to be unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the DRP was incorrect and that the assessee's economic analysis should be considered. Regarding the provision for Medicare expenses, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification. The claim for enhanced deduction under Section 10A on transfer pricing adjustments was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the additional income was voluntarily disclosed and incorporated in the return of income, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.