CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A by admitting evidence not ...

CIT(A) Deletes Additions u/s 68; ITAT Upholds Decision, Citing Admissible Evidence u/r 46(4.

January 14, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A by admitting evidence not produced before AO, as Rule 46(4) permits Appellate Authority to call for evidence. CIT(A) rightly deleted addition of Rs. 60 lakh unsecured loan from mother u/s 68, after examining relevant material. CIT(A) correctly deleted addition of sundry creditors u/s 68, as most were paid in subsequent years and formed part of business transactions. No addition tenable u/s 41(1) for sundry creditors. CIT(A) rightly restricted income estimation to 6% of turnover. Revenue's appeal dismissed by ITAT.

View Source

← Previous Next →

CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A by admitting evidence not ...

CIT(A) Deletes Additions u/s 68; ITAT Upholds Decision, Citing Admissible Evidence u/r 46(4.

January 14, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

The CIT(A) partly allowed and restricted the addition on account of commission expenses at 0.25% as compared to 2% adopted by the Assessing Officer. The coordinate bench...

Disallowance at 2% of total labour expenditure - CIT-A deleted the addition partly - The CIT(A) observed the claim of deleting entire disallowance is not acceptable in...

Addition u/s 68 cannot be made solely based on sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) without corroborative materials. Onus lies on the Department to collect cogent...

CIT(A) determined profit at 5.47% on total purchases. Assessee produced sufficient evidence regarding purchases, movement of goods, GST payment on transportation,...

CIT(A) deleted addition on unaccounted business income, accepting assessee's retraction of statement recorded u/s 132(4). CIT(A) agreed cash payment of 60 crores by...

CIT(A) requested exemption from depositing advance tax u/s 249(4)(b). Assessee demonstrated sufficient reasons for non-appearance/non-compliance before AO during...

Protective addition made by Assessing Officer was not sustainable as substantive addition did not survive in concluded assessment proceedings of related party. CIT(A)...

Power of CIT(A) - Admitting new evidence under Rule 46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules - Sub-rule(4) of Rule 46-A starts with an obstante clause empowering the CIT(A) to...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed for an ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of expenses made by the Assessing Officer....

The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions u/ss 69C and 68 for undisclosed credit card expenditures in foreign currencies based on material found during a survey. The...

Additions u/s 68 - Any appellate authority cannot reject the evidences without any discussion or reason. The CIT (A) has not mentioned as to what more evidence were...

Non-disclosure of income from maintenance charges was challenged. The assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, and non-receipt of maintenance charges...

Validity of the order of the CIT(A) - Non admission of additional evidence - It is indeed the sacrosanct obligation of the first appellate authority to have ensured that...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has adjudicated on various issues concerning deductions u/ss 80IA(4), 14A, and 35D. Regarding Section 80IA(4) deduction, the...

Deduction u/s 80IA(4) - Disallowance of project facility expenses - Revenue expenses or Capital expenditure - Appellant was engaged in infrastructure development and...

Quick Updates: