ITAT Delhi remanded the matter back to CIT(A) since CIT(A) failed to examined the validity of jurisdiction under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back.
ITAT Delhi held that CIT(A) wrongly deleted addition made by AO towards one fifth of the expenses since assessee failed to produce documentary evidences of the expenses. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for non-prosecution and confirmed the order of the AO as no submissions were made on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, matter restored to CIT(A).
ITAT Delhi remands case due to notice sent to wrong email & lack of portal knowledge. Assessing officer directed to reconsider with new evidence.
ITAT Delhi remands penalty under Section 271AAB for reassessment, linking it to reconsidered quantum addition. Fresh proceedings ordered for compliance.
ITAT dismisses Revenue’s tax appeal due to jurisdiction issues, allowing the revenue to approach the appropriate bench for further action.
ITAT restores the matter to AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence in Simmi Madan v. ITO case.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance @10% of personnel expenditure not justified since AO mistakenly presumed expenses claimed by assessee as personal expenditure instead of personnel expenditure. Thus, appeal allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that protective addition in the hands of assessee deleted as substantial addition already made in the hands of the assessee’s wife and tax is already paid on the same. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that merely because particular scrip is identified as penny stock it doesn’t mean all the transactions carried out in that scrip would be bogus. Addition, u/s. 68 deleted in absence of allegation of assessee being involved in any price rigging or price increase.
