Loading ITAT cases…
13 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that disallowing the loss solely based on a previous year's disallowance is incorrect, as each assessment year is a separate unit. The assessee had provided sales invoices with party details and PANs, and the Revenue did not present contrary evidence.
The Tribunal determined the actual value of the land to be Rs. 1,01,35,000, considering seized documents and rejecting the DVO report and the CIT(A)'s estimation. The addition to the assessee's income was restricted to their share of this amount.
The Tribunal, following a similar decision in the assessee's brother's case, restricted the addition to 5% of the total bogus purchases. The addition was therefore reduced to 5% of Rs. 8,09,875/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be well-explained. It also noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 54F effective from April 1, 2015, there was no restriction on purchasing more than one residential unit for claiming deduction. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the full deduction.
The Tribunal held that the AO had considered all facts and applied his mind, making a plausible view. Inadequate inquiry does not make an AO's order erroneous, and thus Section 263 cannot be invoked.
The Tribunal held that the AO had considered all facts and applied his mind, making a plausible view. An inadequate inquiry does not make an AO's order erroneous, and thus Section 263 cannot be invoked.
The Tribunal determined the actual value of the land to be Rs. 1,01,35,000, considering seized documents and rejecting the DVO report and the CIT(A)'s estimation. The addition to the assessee's income was restricted to their share of this amount.
The Tribunal determined the actual value of the land to be Rs. 1,01,35,000, considering seized documents and rejecting the DVO report and the CIT(A)'s estimation. The addition to the assessee's income was restricted to their share of this amount.
The Tribunal determined the actual value of the land to be Rs. 1,01,35,000, considering seized documents and rejecting the DVO report and the CIT(A)'s estimation. The addition to the assessee's income was restricted to their share of this amount.
The Tribunal determined the actual value of the land to be Rs. 1,01,35,000, considering seized documents and rejecting the DVO report and the CIT(A)'s estimation. The addition to the assessee's income was restricted to their share of this amount.
The Tribunal determined the actual value of the land to be Rs. 1,01,35,000, considering seized documents and rejecting the DVO report and the CIT(A)'s estimation. The addition to the assessee's income was restricted to their share of this amount.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly declined to admit the additional evidence. The Tribunal admitted the evidence, set aside the CIT(A)'s finding, and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.