Loading ITAT cases…
76 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to exercise their inherent jurisdiction to correct unintentional mistakes. The appellate authorities have the power to entertain and consider additional claims, even if not made in the original return, especially when there was a clerical error.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening but, following its own previous decisions, restricted the addition for bogus purchases to 6%. However, since the CIT(A) had already restricted the addition to 5% for the current assessment year, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision. Following its own previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 6% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was valid. However, the disallowance of 100% of the disputed purchases was not justified, and the addition was restricted to 6% of the impugned purchases to cover potential revenue leakage.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing additional evidence before lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits for six specific parties.
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the co-owner's case, where relief was granted to the extent of 50% of the deemed sale consideration. Therefore, the assessee was granted similar partial relief.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee was engaged in providing accommodation entries and not genuine business. Books of account were rejected, and profit was estimated based on commission rates.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee was engaged in providing accommodation entries and not genuine business. Books of account were rejected, and profit was estimated based on commission rates.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of the disallowance by the CIT(A) was justified. It followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision that interest and remuneration to partners are not mandatory and their non-claiming does not automatically warrant an addition.
The Tribunal held that disallowing 100% of purchases without disputing sales is not justified, nor is the CIT(A)'s restriction to 5% when the assessee's GP is low. The Tribunal directed disallowance of 6% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the counsel's oversight and the assessee's prompt action upon discovering the delay. On merits, the Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for similar assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving that the recipients of the income had included it in their total income and paid the due tax. The absence of a CA certificate or other documentary evidence meant the assessee's plea was without merit.
The Tribunal held that interest expenses incurred for commercial expediency are deductible even if no income is earned from the investment, following Supreme Court precedents. For other expenses, the Tribunal allowed 50% of the claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee's change of address as reasonable causes. The Tribunal also restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, as the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case. Following that precedent, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide after considering any future judgment from the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the property disclosed in the books of accounts cannot be considered incriminating material, and therefore, additions under section 153A without incriminating material are not justified. The valuation report obtained for a bank loan, done after the transfer date, was also not considered sufficient to replace the disclosed consideration.
The Tribunal held that interest expenses incurred for commercial expediency are deductible even if no income is earned from the investment, following Supreme Court precedents. For other expenses, the Tribunal allowed 50% of the claim.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of purchases without disputing sales is not justified, nor is the 5% restriction by the CIT(A) given the low profit margins. The Tribunal directed a disallowance of 6% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the notice due to technical glitches with email. The CIT(A)'s order was also found to be not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer's file, directing the assessee to explain the commodity transactions. This was done to uphold principles of natural justice, as the full material was provided to the assessee only at the appellate stage.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer's file, directing the assessee to explain the commodity transactions. This was done to uphold principles of natural justice, as the full material was provided to the assessee only at the appellate stage.
The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer/CPC to verify the tax credits shown in Form 26AS and grant appropriate credit or set-off. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a sufficient opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by passing an ex parte order without considering the grounds of appeal on merit. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition after verifying the assessee's bank statements, contractual agreements, and running bills. The CIT(A) found the assessee's explanation to be bonafide and the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her grounds of appeal. The addition of long-term capital gains based on the DVO's report was affirmed.