Loading ITAT cases…
56 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her primary onus by providing all relevant details and documents to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct any inquiry or provide contrary evidence to justify the addition.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the AO. The assessee was directed to participate fully in the proceedings.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding cash purchases, restricting the disallowance to 5% of the total purchases. The disallowance of interest paid on loans was deleted, and the addition of gifts as unexplained expenses was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income, though reclassified by the AO, was already disclosed in the return of income. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars, and no tax was sought to be evaded.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income, even if re-categorized by the AO, was already disclosed in the original return of income. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate details.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is reflected in the return of income, even if the Assessing Officer reclassifies it under a different head. The assessee had disclosed the income and not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate details.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is disclosed in the original return of income, even if the AO reclassifies it under a different head. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars in the return.
The Tribunal held that since the disclosed income was duly reflected in the original return of income and no tax was evaded, it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that since the disclosed income was duly reflected in the original return of income and no tax was evaded, it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable if the income, even if re-characterized by the AO, was truthfully reported in the original return. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars, and no tax was evaded on the returned income.
The Tribunal held that since the disclosed income was reflected in the original return of income and no tax was evaded, it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is disclosed in the return, even if the AO changes the head of income. The AO's action of re-categorizing the income without changing the total income or tax payable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable if the income, even if re-characterized by the AO, was truthfully reported in the original return. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars, and no tax was evaded on the returned income.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is disclosed in the return, even if the AO changes the head of income. The AO's action of re-categorizing the income without changing the total income or tax payable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is disclosed in the return, even if the AO changes the head of income. The AO's action of re-categorizing the income without changing the total income or tax payable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is disclosed in the return, even if the AO changes the head of income. The AO's action of re-categorizing the income without changing the total income or tax payable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is disclosed in the return, even if the AO changes the head of income. The AO's action of re-categorizing the income without changing the total income or tax payable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is disclosed in the return, even if the AO changes the head of income. The AO's action of re-categorizing the income without changing the total income or tax payable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is disclosed in the return, even if the AO changes the head of income. The AO's action of re-categorizing the income without changing the total income or tax payable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable if the income, even if re-characterized by the AO, was truthfully reported in the original return. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars, and no tax was evaded on the returned income.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable if the income, even if re-characterized by the AO, was truthfully reported in the original return. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars, and no tax was evaded on the returned income.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable if the income, even if re-characterized by the AO, was truthfully reported in the original return. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars, and no tax was evaded on the returned income.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is reflected in the return of income, even if the Assessing Officer reclassifies it under a different head. The assessee had disclosed the income and not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate details.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is reflected in the return of income, even if the Assessing Officer reclassifies it under a different head. The assessee had disclosed the income and not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate details.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the income, even if re-classified by the AO, was already disclosed in the return of income. The AO's re-classification of income head does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable if the income, even if re-characterized by the AO, was truthfully reported in the original return. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars, and no tax was evaded on the returned income.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable if the income, even if re-characterized by the AO, was truthfully reported in the original return. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars, and no tax was evaded on the returned income.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is reflected in the return of income, even if the Assessing Officer reclassifies it under a different head. The assessee had disclosed the income and not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate details.
The Tribunal held that since the disclosed income was reflected in the original return of income and no tax was evaded, it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that since the disclosed income was duly reflected in the original return of income and no tax was evaded, it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the disclosed income was reflected in the original return of income and no tax was evaded, it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that since the disclosed income was reflected in the original return of income and no tax was evaded, it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that since the disclosed income was reflected in the original return of income and no tax was evaded, it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income, even if re-categorized by the AO, was already disclosed in the original return of income. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate details.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income, even if re-categorized by the AO, was already disclosed in the original return of income. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate details.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income, even if re-categorized by the AO, was already disclosed in the original return of income. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate details.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is disclosed in the return, even if the AO changes the head of income. The AO's action of re-categorizing the income without changing the total income or tax payable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is disclosed in the return, even if the AO changes the head of income. The AO's action of re-categorizing the income without changing the total income or tax payable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income is disclosed in the return, even if the AO changes the head of income. The AO's action of re-categorizing the income without changing the total income or tax payable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate time to furnish the required details due to holidays and the closure of the consultant's office. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing details like depositor names, addresses, PANs, confirmations, and bank statements. The AO failed to disprove the material facts in the affidavits and did not allow cross-examination of depositors.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing details like depositor names, addresses, PANs, confirmations, and bank statements. The AO failed to disprove the material facts in the affidavits and did not allow cross-examination of depositors.
The Tribunal held that the 'Sathakhat' lacked evidentiary value as it was unsigned, undated, and unstamped. The registered sale deed, prepared by an independent advocate, showed the consideration as Rs. 4 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases might not be entirely genuine from the stated parties, disallowing 100% was not justified as the assessee's sales were not doubted. The addition was restricted to 5% of the total bogus purchases.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter back. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Exemptions) and restored the issue back to the CIT's file. The CIT was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, noting that it was not passed in accordance with statutory requirements and that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that an appeal requires effective pursuit, not just filing. Since the assessee failed to appear and pursue the appeal, it was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of a bonafide belief regarding the taxation of interest income at maturity, coupled with the fact that the FD details were available, meant the income could not be considered concealed. Therefore, the penalty was not maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of municipal tax and the portion of the cooperative society payment pertaining to earlier years, stating that expenses crystallized in earlier years cannot be allowed in the current year merely by passing a journal entry or a resolution. Interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D was also confirmed as mandatory.