Loading ITAT cases…
12 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that since the peak of the cash transactions, which included those pertaining to the impugned year, had already been taxed in the preceding assessment year (AY 2006-07), no further addition was warranted for the current year. The ITAT for AY 2006-07 had upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the peak credit.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b), agreeing with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to one default. The Tribunal found that the assessee had repeatedly failed to comply with notices without providing a plausible explanation.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' withdrawal applications due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn under the scheme.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' withdrawal applications due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn under the scheme.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not discharged its onus to prove the creditworthiness of the investors. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that in cases of unabated assessments, additions under section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the PCIT erred in initiating section 263 proceedings.
The Tribunal held that in cases of unabated assessments, additions under section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the PCIT erred in initiating section 263 proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that DEPB benefits do not affect the valuation of closing stock and that the GP addition was arbitrary without rejecting the books of account. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee due to their participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of rejecting the books of account and then making an addition based on those same books was contradictory and lacked application of mind. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.