Loading ITAT cases…
25 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished confirmations from all depositors and that the loans had been repaid. Since the Revenue did not conduct any inquiry to disprove the confirmations, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in holding that appeals against orders under Section 234E were not maintainable, especially after amendments to Section 200A. For three assessees, the Tribunal quashed the orders levying the fine. For one assessee, the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in holding that appeals against orders under Section 234E were not maintainable, especially after amendments to Section 200A. For three assessees, the Tribunal quashed the orders levying the fine. For one assessee, the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in holding that appeals against orders under Section 234E were not maintainable, especially after amendments to Section 200A. For three assessees, the Tribunal quashed the orders levying the fine. For one assessee, the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in holding that appeals against orders under Section 234E were not maintainable, especially after amendments to Section 200A. For three assessees, the Tribunal quashed the orders levying the fine. For one assessee, the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals solely for want of prosecution without deciding on merits. The CIT(A) was mandated to decide appeals on merits as per Section 250(6).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals solely for want of prosecution without deciding on merits. The CIT(A) was mandated to decide appeals on merits as per Section 250(6).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals solely for want of prosecution without deciding on merits. The CIT(A) was mandated to decide appeals on merits as per Section 250(6).
The Tribunal held that the reasons cited by the AO for rejecting the books of accounts were not sufficient grounds for rejection. It further found that the AO's method of estimating profit was arbitrary and not based on proper application of law. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the enquiry under Section 133(6) was conducted behind the assessee's back and principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the assessee's books of accounts should be believed, and the additions were deleted.
The tribunal held that the disallowance of excess interest was justified due to lack of commercial expediency. However, the penalty for accepting cash from the wife was set aside, considering it a technical breach with bonafide intentions.
The tribunal held that the disallowance of excess interest was justified due to lack of commercial expediency. However, the penalty for accepting cash from the wife was set aside, considering it a technical breach with bonafide intentions.
The Tribunal held that a mere ad-hoc declaration of income in a statement under section 132(4) without any corroborating incriminating material does not constitute 'undisclosed income' for the purpose of penalty under section 271AAB. The penalty was therefore not sustainable.