Loading ITAT cases…
157 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the existence of HUF properties and generation of agricultural income could not be doubted, but quantification issues remained. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a specific formula for calculating net agricultural income and to consider it for explaining investments after deducting personal withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the existence of HUF properties and generation of agricultural income could not be doubted, but quantification issues remained. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a specific formula for calculating net agricultural income and to consider it for explaining investments after deducting personal withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the existence of HUF properties and generation of agricultural income could not be doubted, but quantification issues remained. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a specific formula for calculating net agricultural income and to consider it for explaining investments after deducting personal withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the existence of HUF properties and generation of agricultural income could not be doubted, but quantification issues remained. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a specific formula for calculating net agricultural income and to consider it for explaining investments after deducting personal withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the existence of HUF properties and generation of agricultural income could not be doubted, but quantification issues remained. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a specific formula for calculating net agricultural income and to consider it for explaining investments after deducting personal withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the existence of HUF properties and generation of agricultural income could not be doubted, but quantification issues remained. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a specific formula for calculating net agricultural income and to consider it for explaining investments after deducting personal withdrawals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that Section 115JC (AMT) should be applied prospectively and not to projects approved before its introduction, granting relief to the assessee on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10A should be allowed at the stage of computing profits and gains of business, before the set-off of brought forward losses. This is because Section 10A deduction is for an eligible undertaking on a standalone basis.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that Section 115JC (AMT) should be applied prospectively and not to projects approved before its introduction, granting relief to the assessee on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per the prevailing CBDT circulars. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order is bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening notice. This procedural lapse, as per Supreme Court and High Court judgments, warrants quashing the reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and lacked a categorical finding on each expense. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and considered the assessee's detailed replies regarding the Section 54F exemption. Therefore, the revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner was deemed incorrect and arbitrary.
The Tribunal restored the cross-appeals for the assessment year 2013-14 to the Assessing Officer for adjudication, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for a previous year. This was done to ensure proper examination of the issues involved.
The Tribunal restored the cross-appeals for the assessment year 2013-14 to the Assessing Officer for adjudication, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for a previous year. This was done to ensure proper examination of the issues involved.
The Tribunal held that while the statement made during search can be used as evidence, the assessee can present further evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases. The addition was sustained at 10% of the purchase amounts, representing the profit element.
The Tribunal held that since the land itself was not legally transferred to the partnership firm, the authorities below were not justified in treating it as a sale. The deeming provision of Section 43CA is not activated without a transfer.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeals was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the advance was not a gratuitous advance but was given to protect the business interests of the company. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction for bad and doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia) based on High Court precedent. For the bonus claim, the matter was remanded for verification of details.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeals was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that while the statement made during search can be used as evidence, the assessee can present further evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases. The addition was sustained at 10% of the purchase amounts, representing the profit element.
The Tribunal held that while the statement made during search can be used as evidence, the assessee can present further evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases. The addition was sustained at 10% of the purchase amounts, representing the profit element.
The Tribunal held that while the statement made during search can be used as evidence, the assessee can present further evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases. The addition was sustained at 10% of the purchase amounts, representing the profit element.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it crucial for the case. Consequently, the appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the issue of bank deposits in light of the new evidence.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it crucial for the case. Consequently, the appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the issue of bank deposits in light of the new evidence.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, found the issue required detailed factual verification. It held that if the income from the entries was declared by Mr. Chhoriya as his own, no addition should sustain in the assessee's hands, but if contrary, the addition would be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeals was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeals was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that while the statement made during search can be used as evidence, the assessee can present further evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases. The addition was sustained at 10% of the purchase amounts, representing the profit element.
The Tribunal held that while the statement made during search can be used as evidence, the assessee can present further evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases. The addition was sustained at 10% of the purchase amounts, representing the profit element.
The Tribunal held that while the statement made during search can be used as evidence, the assessee can present further evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases. The addition was sustained at 10% of the purchase amounts, representing the profit element.
The Tribunal held that while the statement made during search can be used as evidence, the assessee can present further evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases. The addition was sustained at 10% of the purchase amounts, representing the profit element.
The Tribunal held that while the statement made during search can be used as evidence, the assessee can present further evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases. The addition was sustained at 10% of the purchase amounts, representing the profit element.
The Tribunal held that while the statement made during search can be used as evidence, the assessee can present further evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases. The addition was sustained at 10% of the purchase amounts, representing the profit element.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it crucial for the case. Consequently, the appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the issue of bank deposits in light of the new evidence.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it crucial for the case. Consequently, the appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the issue of bank deposits in light of the new evidence.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it crucial for the case. Consequently, the appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the issue of bank deposits in light of the new evidence.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it crucial for the case. Consequently, the appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the issue of bank deposits in light of the new evidence.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order restricting the net profit rates to be unjustified. It restored the Assessing Officer's estimation of net profit at 9% on self-executed contract receipts and 4.5% on sub-contract receipts.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order restricting the net profit rates to be unjustified. It restored the Assessing Officer's estimation of net profit at 9% on self-executed contract receipts and 4.5% on sub-contract receipts.
The Tribunal found that the purchases of Rs. 20,20,074/- were made on 31st March 2013 and were part of the books of account, and it was admitted they were not sold. However, the assessee failed to demonstrate their inclusion in the closing stock.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to charge late fees under Section 234E read with Section 200A for the period prior to the insertion of the computation procedure for late fees, which was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the imposition of late fees was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's direction to the AO to examine the Section 10A claim was beyond its scope as per Section 144C(8). The Tribunal set aside the DRP's order and remitted the matter to the DRP to adjudicate the Section 10A claim itself.
The Tribunal held that the imposition of late fee under Section 234E read with Section 200A was not maintainable as the enabling procedure for computation of late fee was inserted prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the late fee confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the imposition of late fee under Section 234E read with Section 200A was not maintainable as the enabling procedure for computation of late fee was inserted prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the late fee confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the imposition of late fee under Section 234E read with Section 200A was not maintainable as the enabling procedure for computation of late fee was inserted prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the late fee confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's direction to the AO to examine the Section 10A claim was beyond its scope as per Section 144C(8). The Tribunal set aside the DRP's order and remitted the matter to the DRP to adjudicate the Section 10A claim itself.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade, not a capital asset transaction. Therefore, the income should be taxed under the head 'Profits and gains from business or profession'. The addition made by the authorities below was not justified.