Loading ITAT cases…
104 tribunal orders from the Varanasi bench in 2023.
Showing 40 of 104 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and verified the transactions, including obtaining supporting documents and confirmations. The PCIT's view that the AO ignored crucial evidence was not substantiated, as the AO had examined the provided details and found them to be genuine.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and verified the transactions, including obtaining supporting documents and confirmations. The PCIT's view that the AO ignored crucial evidence was not substantiated, as the AO had examined the provided details and found them to be genuine.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and verified the transactions, including obtaining supporting documents and confirmations. The PCIT's view that the AO ignored crucial evidence was not substantiated, as the AO had examined the provided details and found them to be genuine.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and verified the transactions, including obtaining supporting documents and confirmations. The PCIT's view that the AO ignored crucial evidence was not substantiated, as the AO had examined the provided details and found them to be genuine.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and verified the transactions, including obtaining supporting documents and confirmations. The PCIT's view that the AO ignored crucial evidence was not substantiated, as the AO had examined the provided details and found them to be genuine.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding the AO's reliance on a single, contradictory statement and a 'dumb document' without corroboration insufficient. The Tribunal noted that all parties involved denied any payments outside the books.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable before the ITAT. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the High Court or the PCIT again.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding the AO's reliance on a single, contradictory statement and a 'dumb document' without corroboration insufficient. The Tribunal noted that all parties involved denied any payments outside the books.
The Tribunal held that the AO's extrapolation of 'on-money' receipts to all flat bookings was unjustified. The addition must be based on incriminating material found during the search and subsequent inquiries, not on guesswork or presumption.
The Tribunal directed the AO to correct the depreciation allowance to the amount accepted by the DRP and delete the short disallowance. It was also held that a marginal delay in depositing ESI contributions due to bank server glitches, when the deposit was attempted on time, would not constitute a delay on the part of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee invested the net consideration within the stipulated period for the purchase of the flat, even though it was booked earlier. The Tribunal allowed the exemption under Section 54F.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee had sufficient cash balance from sales duly recorded in audited books, and the AO failed to provide a valid reason for rejecting the books or making an ad-hoc addition.
The Tribunal held that the bank account in question belonged to the assessee's father's proprietary concern and not the assessee. Therefore, the cash deposits in that account could not be added to the assessee's income. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to re-calculate the turnover estimation.
The Tribunal held that a surrender made under section 132(4) without corroborative material cannot be the sole basis for an addition. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) correctly deleted additions related to marriage expenses due to lack of incriminating documents.
The Tribunal held that a surrender made under section 132(4) without corroborative material cannot be the sole basis for an addition. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) correctly deleted additions related to marriage expenses due to lack of incriminating documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing evidence of the creditor's identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The AO failed to discharge the onus shifted to him to disprove the transaction.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10, confirming an addition of Rs. 12,06,600 under Section 40A(3) while granting relief on Rs. 9,95,800. The appeal for AY 2020-21 regarding PF/ESI contribution was remanded to the AO. Revenue's appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2014-15 were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the provisions for claiming refunds and that the revenue cannot retain excess tax paid. The manual return should be processed and the refund granted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10, confirming an addition of Rs. 12,06,600 under Section 40A(3) while granting relief on Rs. 9,95,800. The appeal for AY 2020-21 regarding PF/ESI contribution was remanded to the AO. Revenue's appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2014-15 were dismissed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10, confirming an addition of Rs. 12,06,600 under Section 40A(3) while granting relief on Rs. 9,95,800. The appeal for AY 2020-21 regarding PF/ESI contribution was remanded to the AO. Revenue's appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2014-15 were dismissed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10, confirming an addition of Rs. 12,06,600 under Section 40A(3) while granting relief on Rs. 9,95,800. The appeal for AY 2020-21 regarding PF/ESI contribution was remanded to the AO. Revenue's appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2014-15 were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the discount expenses claimed by the assessee were not substantiated with proper evidence. The disallowance of ROC fees was also upheld.
The Tribunal held that the validity of reopening and service of notice were justified. However, on merits, it found that the explanation regarding the gold loan and its transfer to a joint account needed further substantiation.
The Tribunal held that the validity of reopening and service of notice were justified. However, on merits, it found that the explanation regarding the gold loan and its transfer to a joint account needed further substantiation.
The Tribunal held that the entire deposits represented business receipts and Section 69A was not applicable for unexplained money. It also directed the estimation of profit at 6% on total deposits, considering the perishable nature of fruits.
The Tribunal directed the AO to grant relief for Rs.2,86,640/- representing inter-bank transfers. The issues regarding grants, examination fees, and donations were restored to the AO for fresh examination. The addition for insurance premium was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the advances might have been adjusted against bills for diesel supplied to the government departments. It noted that the tax authorities had not examined the issue from this perspective.
The tribunal partially allowed the appeal for AY 2013-14, sustaining an addition of Rs. 1,09,948/- related to opening stock discrepancy and remanding the trading creditor issue for fresh examination. For AY 2014-15, the addition was restricted to the peak credit balance in the undisclosed bank account.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities, preventing examination of explanations. To ensure natural justice, the case was restored to the AO for a fresh examination of the issues.
The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on presumptions and surmises. The capital balance was supported by the income declared in earlier returns and financial statements for AY 2015-16, which were not disproved by the AO.
The tribunal partially allowed the appeal for AY 2013-14, sustaining an addition of Rs. 1,09,948/- related to opening stock discrepancy and remanding the trading creditor issue for fresh examination. For AY 2014-15, the addition was restricted to the peak credit balance in the undisclosed bank account.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the charge under which penalty proceedings were initiated in the show-cause notice. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, this defect vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The tribunal held that the adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a) by automatically adopting the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C is beyond the scope of prima facie adjustments. Such a valuation is subject to challenge and cannot be a basis for an automatic adjustment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It reduced the net profit rate applied on undisclosed receipts from 10% to 1% and reduced the ad-hoc disallowance on shop expenses from 10% to 5%.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Exemption) and restored the issue back to the CIT's file. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary details for a fresh consideration of the application.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on the VSVS, as the scheme was not applicable to the reassessment proceedings. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that while the deductee had fulfilled its tax liability, interest under section 201(1A) is leviable if the deductor fails to deduct or pay tax. The CIT(A)'s order levying interest was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that while the deductee had fulfilled its tax liability, interest under section 201(1A) is leviable if the deductor fails to deduct or pay tax. The CIT(A)'s order levying interest was confirmed.
The Tribunal allowed a deduction of 15% for self-supervision charges, finding it reasonable given the property's remote location. This adjustment resulted in a valuation that was almost identical to the assessees' disclosed investment, leading to the deletion of the additions.
The Tribunal allowed a deduction of 15% for self-supervision charges, finding it reasonable given the property's remote location. This adjustment resulted in a valuation that was almost identical to the assessees' disclosed investment, leading to the deletion of the additions.