Loading ITAT cases…
235 tribunal orders from the Visakhapatnam bench in 2020.
Showing 40 of 235 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that additions made in completed assessments without any incriminating material seized during a search are not permissible. For the AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits, and any doubt about the source of source should be addressed with the creditor, not the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the deletion of disallowance for making charges paid to goldsmiths, finding that TDS provisions were not attracted. However, it upheld the disallowance for a portion of making charges due to lack of evidence and the addition for the difference in purchases, as the assessee failed to provide supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that additions made in completed assessments without any incriminating material seized during a search are not permissible. For the AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits, and any doubt about the source of source should be addressed with the creditor, not the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in estimating the income of the assessee. The primary reasoning was that the AO failed to reject the assessee's books of account under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a mandatory prerequisite for estimating profit. The Tribunal noted that while the AO observed a decrease in net profit, no defects were pointed out in the books of account, and no evidence of income suppression or inflation of expenses was found during the search operation. The Tribunal emphasized that estimation of profit cannot be done by comparing profits of earlier years with the current year without rejecting the books of account. The admission given by the assessee via affidavit was considered invalid as it was given under misapprehension and pressure, and importantly, the law requires rejection of books of account irrespective of such admission. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the addition made by the AO. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that additions made in completed assessments without any incriminating material seized during a search are not permissible. For the AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits, and any doubt about the source of source should be addressed with the creditor, not the assessee.
The Tribunal held that in unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search, even if there is a voluntary admission. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that in unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search, even if there is a voluntary admission. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in estimating the income of the assessee. The primary reasoning was that the AO failed to reject the assessee's books of account under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a mandatory prerequisite for estimating profit. The Tribunal noted that while the AO observed a decrease in net profit, no defects were pointed out in the books of account, and no evidence of income suppression or inflation of expenses was found during the search operation. The Tribunal emphasized that estimation of profit cannot be done by comparing profits of earlier years with the current year without rejecting the books of account. The admission given by the assessee via affidavit was considered invalid as it was given under misapprehension and pressure, and importantly, the law requires rejection of books of account irrespective of such admission. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the addition made by the AO. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that in unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search, even if there is a voluntary admission. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that capital contributions made by partners to a firm cannot be assessed in the hands of the firm under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Such amounts should be examined in the hands of the individual partners.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn, as the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Department had issued the relevant form. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arose.
The Tribunal held that in unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search, even if there is a voluntary admission. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in estimating the income of the assessee at 2.15% of the total turnover for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal noted that for estimating profit, it is mandatory to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by pointing out specific defects. In this case, the AO did not reject the books of account, nor did the search operation yield any evidence of income suppression or inflated expenditure. The assessee had maintained regular, audited books of account. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in ACIT Vs. Rushabh Vatika, Pr.CIT Vs. Marg Ltd., and Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, which state that estimation of profit cannot be done without rejecting the books of account and without material evidence. The admission given by the assessee in an affidavit was not considered a sufficient basis for estimation without proper justification and verification. Therefore, the estimation of income made by the AO was held to be bad in law. The Tribunal upheld the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that additions made in completed assessments without any incriminating material seized during a search are not permissible. For the AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits, and any doubt about the source of source should be addressed with the creditor, not the assessee.
The Tribunal held that additions made in completed assessments without any incriminating material seized during a search are not permissible. For the AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits, and any doubt about the source of source should be addressed with the creditor, not the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in estimating the income of the assessee at 2.15% of the total turnover for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal noted that for estimating profit, it is mandatory to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by pointing out specific defects. In this case, the AO did not reject the books of account, nor did the search operation yield any evidence of income suppression or inflated expenditure. The assessee had maintained regular, audited books of account. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in ACIT Vs. Rushabh Vatika, Pr.CIT Vs. Marg Ltd., and Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, which state that estimation of profit cannot be done without rejecting the books of account and without material evidence. The admission given by the assessee in an affidavit was not considered a sufficient basis for estimation without proper justification and verification. Therefore, the estimation of income made by the AO was held to be bad in law. The Tribunal upheld the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that in unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search, even if there is a voluntary admission. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn, as the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Department had issued the relevant form. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arose.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 54 days in filing the appeals. The appeals were admitted to allow the assessees to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and settle the protracted litigation.
The Tribunal held that in unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search, even if there is a voluntary admission. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that upon issuance of Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.
The Tribunal noted that a certificate in Form No.3 was issued, and the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision to recall the order if the certificate was later withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per the provisions of The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order in unforeseen circumstances.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The withdrawal was permitted with liberty to seek recall of the order in case of unforeseen circumstances.
The tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall if unforeseen circumstances arise.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was permitted because the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued Form No. 3.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order in case of unforeseen circumstances.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to seek recall if unforeseen circumstances arise.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, and the Department had issued Form No. 3.
The tribunal noted that upon issuance of Form No.3, the appeal is deemed withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision to recall the order if the certificate is later withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that once the certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act is issued, the appeals are deemed withdrawn. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a rider to recall the order if the certificate is later withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The withdrawal was granted with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.
The Tribunal noted that upon issuance of Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed withdrawn. The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal, which was permitted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and a certificate was issued. The assessees sought to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that upon issuance of Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that upon issuance of Form No. 3, the appeals are deemed withdrawn. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a liberty to recall the order if the certificate is withdrawn later.
The Tribunal noted that the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate was issued and the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that once Form No.3 is issued under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the appeals are deemed withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees having availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing the necessary forms.