Loading ITAT cases…
83 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the gifts in the donor's (son's) case was a clinching factor. Therefore, the additions made to the assessee's income on account of these gifts and subsequent cash deposits were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the gifts in the donor's (son's) case was a clinching factor. Therefore, the additions made to the assessee's income on account of these gifts and subsequent cash deposits were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the gifts in the donor's (son's) case was a clinching factor. Therefore, the additions made to the assessee's income on account of these gifts and subsequent cash deposits were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the gifts in the donor's (son's) case was a clinching factor. Therefore, the additions made to the assessee's income on account of these gifts and subsequent cash deposits were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the gifts in the donor's (son's) case was a clinching factor. Therefore, the additions made to the assessee's income on account of these gifts and subsequent cash deposits were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the gifts in the donor's (son's) case was a clinching factor. Therefore, the additions made to the assessee's income on account of these gifts and subsequent cash deposits were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for purchases, finding them to be genuine and citing a High Court decision. A portion of other expenses disallowance was also reduced, while commission disallowance and unexplained cash credit addition were deleted.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee successfully proved the scrap pertained to multiple entities, not just Tata Motors. The Tribunal found no merit in the AO's estimation of suppressed scrap and under-billing.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the gifts in the donor's (son's) case was a clinching factor. Therefore, the additions made to the assessee's income on account of these gifts and subsequent cash deposits were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to June 1, 2015, the levy was invalid for the period in question.
The Tribunal held that the liability had been consistently claimed for many years without objection and that the lower authorities failed to demonstrate cessation of liability in law. The addition made under Section 41(1) was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the substantive addition made in the case of Shri Rajesh Kumar covered the protective addition in the assessee's case. They found no material to suggest that the addition in Shri Rajesh Kumar's case was not final.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the taxpayer's provision for raising expenses to be justifiable based on the Assessing Officer's own remand report. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to June 1, 2015, the levy was invalid for the period in question.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to June 1, 2015, the levy was invalid for the period in question.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to June 1, 2015, the levy was invalid for the period in question.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to June 1, 2015, the levy was invalid for the period in question.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to June 1, 2015, the levy was invalid for the period in question.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to June 1, 2015, the levy was invalid for the period in question.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to June 1, 2015, the levy was invalid for the period in question.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to June 1, 2015, the levy was invalid for the period in question.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to June 1, 2015, the levy was invalid for the period in question.
The Tribunal held that an appeal requires effective prosecution, not just filing. Since the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that for three assessees, where payments were made via cheque on or before the agreement date, the additions under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were to be deleted. For the remaining two assessees, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, including a mandatory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2).
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(VII)(b) was not attracted as the advance payment was made prior to the relevant date and the property was booked before the amended provisions came into effect. The delay in registration was due to the seller's ill health.
The Tribunal held that the assessee owned agricultural land in rural Bihar and had been declaring agricultural income for years, which was accepted by the department in previous assessment years. The Tribunal relied on the principle of consistency and deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A).