Loading ITAT cases…
265 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, held that an estimation of 10% of the alleged bogus purchases should be added to the assessee's income, over and above the net profit shown. The assessee's ground of appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assumption of non-filing of return was incorrect as the return was filed and the investment in UTI was disclosed in the balance sheet. Therefore, the reopening was based on wrong facts and reasons.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had ignored the availability of sufficient interest-free funds. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the availability of interest-free funds.
The Tribunal held that the matter needed further examination of facts, including the nature of transactions, the make-believe paperwork, and the applicability of human probabilities. Therefore, the appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the matter needed further examination of facts, including the nature of transactions, the make-believe paperwork, and the applicability of human probabilities. Therefore, the appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the matter needed further examination of facts, including the nature of transactions, the make-believe paperwork, and the applicability of human probabilities. Therefore, the appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following its earlier decision on identical facts for AY 2010-11, restricted the addition to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to cooperate with the AO and establish the trail of goods.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to attend the CIT(A) hearing was not proper, and the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of disallowance of excess depreciation claim to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For AY 2006-07, several grounds were allowed in favor of the assessee, relying on previous decisions for AY 2005-06.
The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of disallowance of excess depreciation claim to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For AY 2006-07, several grounds were allowed in favor of the assessee, relying on previous decisions for AY 2005-06.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that inadequate time was granted by the tax authorities. The AO is directed to pass a speaking order after providing one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard and furnish relevant documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal also decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to be heard by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the preliminary onus by establishing the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction through banking channels. Invoking Section 68 was deemed improper as it involved delving into the 'source of source'.
The Tribunal found the reasons for reassessment to be incorrect and unsustainable. The assessee had indeed filed a return and offered capital gains based on stamp duty valuation as required by Section 50C.
The Tribunal held that the matter needed further examination of facts, including the nature of transactions, the make-believe paperwork, and the applicability of human probabilities. Therefore, the appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.