Loading ITAT cases…
136 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanations for the additions made by the AO were not properly considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanations for the additions made by the AO were not properly considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanations for the additions made by the AO were not properly considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanations for the additions made by the AO were not properly considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the Revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by accepting the valuation report without referring the matter to the DVO as required by Section 50C, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The contention regarding agricultural land was not accepted as it was not pleaded before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The respondent did not raise any objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in not considering the audit report filed during the set-aside proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO should have considered the reasons for the delay in filing the audit report, especially when the report was available before him.
The Tribunal held that Rs. 6,25,000 was deposited by cheque from a bank, not cash, and the CIT(A) had already accepted Rs. 50,000 from the loan. The Tribunal also found the sale of jewellery document to be genuine, discharging the assessee's onus.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee was allowed to present additional evidence regarding the genuineness of the loan transactions before the AO.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that taxing the assessee on the Rs. 10 lakhs received as a consenting party would lead to double taxation, as the entire sale consideration was already taxed in the hands of his mother. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and the capital gain offered by the assessee were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO had sufficient tangible material to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, and the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The Tribunal also found no violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was aware of the statements and did not request cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the absence of issuance of a notice under Section 148 is a fatal flaw, and Section 292BB, which deals with deemed service of notice due to assessee's participation, does not validate the failure to issue the notice itself.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal as the respondent did not object.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) applies only to objects of 'advancement of any other object of general public utility' and not to other charitable purposes like relief to the poor, education, or medical relief. Since the assessee was genuinely pursuing these latter categories, the proviso was not attracted.
The Tribunal held that adding the entire purchases as bogus was incorrect and directed the AO to determine gross profit at 10% on alleged purchases. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was remanded to the AO for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that adding the entire purchases as bogus was incorrect and directed the AO to determine gross profit at 10% on alleged purchases. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was remanded to the AO for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not claim any deduction for the provision of bad and doubtful debts in earlier years and the reversal was already accounted for in the net profit, no addition was warranted. The reversal of the reserve does not constitute taxable income.
The Tribunal, having no objection from the Revenue, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as per the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that an order passed under Section 271FA of the Income Tax Act is not appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as per Section 253(1) of the Act. The assessee's representative conceded to this point.
The Tribunal held that the Turmeric trading transactions were genuine, as similar transactions by other traders through Bharat Nilakhe were accepted by the Revenue. The addition on account of deemed dividend was also deleted as the amount was received and taxed in the preceding year.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not time-barred, citing Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, as the last day for filing fell on a Sunday. The Tribunal also found the reasons for non-participation before the CIT(A) satisfactory.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not time-barred, citing Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, as the last day for filing fell on a Sunday. The Tribunal also found the reasons for non-participation before the CIT(A) satisfactory.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not time-barred, citing Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, as the last day for filing fell on a Sunday. The Tribunal also found the reasons for non-participation before the CIT(A) satisfactory.
The Tribunal held that the Turmeric trading transactions were genuine, as similar transactions by other traders through Bharat Nilakhe were accepted by the Revenue. The addition on account of deemed dividend was also deleted as the amount was received and taxed in the preceding year.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not time-barred, citing Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, as the last day for filing fell on a Sunday. The Tribunal also found the reasons for non-participation before the CIT(A) satisfactory.
The Tribunal allowed the ground related to intra-group services, finding that the value of services rendered by Nalco Pacific to the assessee could not be 'nil'. However, grounds regarding the use of multiple year data and the benefit of a +/- 3% range for transfer pricing adjustments were dismissed. The issue of interest levy was remanded.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the assessee's rights were not adjudicated. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO's calculation of excess deduction was based on the arm's length price profit versus the assessee's actual profit. Following a precedent, the Tribunal found the AO's action of disallowing deduction based on higher profit offered by the assessee to be incorrect.
The Tribunal, having no objection from the Revenue, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Revenue's counsel conceded that the appeal should not be prosecuted due to the Vivad se Vishwas settlement. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.