Loading ITAT cases…
280 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in estimating gross profit when net profit should have been considered and also in making disallowances under Section 40A(3) when estimation was already made on gross profit. The issue of excess stock was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(1) of the Income Tax Act on account of share premium. The Tribunal reasoned that share premium is capital in nature and not income, as held by the Bombay High Court in M/s. Vodafone India Services Private Limited, a decision accepted by the CBDT through Circular No. 2 of 2015. This circular is binding on the Assessing Officer under Section 119 of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer could not invoke Section 68 as the identity and solvency of the non-resident shareholders were established, and Section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable to non-residents. Furthermore, the Tribunal reiterated the principle that an Assessing Officer cannot substitute his judgment for that of a businessman regarding the valuation of shares, especially when the transaction was an international one with an associated enterprise, reported in Form 3CEB, and referred to the TPO who found no fault. The Tribunal dismissed the grounds of appeal of the revenue for both assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in estimating gross profit when net profit should have been considered and also in making disallowances under Section 40A(3) when estimation was already made on gross profit. The issue of excess stock was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Lovely Exports Ltd., stating that the revenue's onus was to prove the deposit as unaccounted money, which they failed to do.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted during appellate proceedings that there was a data entry error. To uphold the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted. It reasoned that all transactions were disclosed in the return, and the issue was a wrong claim of exemption rather than concealment of particulars. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions stating that an inaccurate claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in estimating gross profit when net profit should have been considered and also in making disallowances under Section 40A(3) when estimation was already made on gross profit. The issue of excess stock was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in estimating gross profit when net profit should have been considered and also in making disallowances under Section 40A(3) when estimation was already made on gross profit. The issue of excess stock was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to substantiate its case before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was without jurisdiction as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The AO's reasons for reopening were based on a change of opinion, not new material.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the amounts payable to Shri Paranthaman were actually reflected under 'Sundry Debtors' in the balance sheet, not 'Sundry Creditors'. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO's conclusion was not supported by the evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly considered the assessee's father's bank account for calculating the peak credit. Since the peak credit of Rs. 2.99 crores was already accounted for, no further addition was warranted.
The Tribunal held that since the cash deposits were sourced from regular business sales, duly accounted for in the books and VAT returns, the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable. It noted that simply violating RBI notifications does not automatically warrant additions under Section 69A if the source is explained.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(1) of the Income Tax Act on account of share premium. The Tribunal reasoned that share premium is capital in nature and not income, as held by the Bombay High Court in M/s. Vodafone India Services Private Limited, a decision accepted by the CBDT through Circular No. 2 of 2015. This circular is binding on the Assessing Officer under Section 119 of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer could not invoke Section 68 as the identity and solvency of the non-resident shareholders were established, and Section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable to non-residents. Furthermore, the Tribunal reiterated the principle that an Assessing Officer cannot substitute his judgment for that of a businessman regarding the valuation of shares, especially when the transaction was an international one with an associated enterprise, reported in Form 3CEB, and referred to the TPO who found no fault. The Tribunal dismissed the grounds of appeal of the revenue for both assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in estimating gross profit when net profit should have been considered and also in making disallowances under Section 40A(3) when estimation was already made on gross profit. The issue of excess stock was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in estimating gross profit when net profit should have been considered and also in making disallowances under Section 40A(3) when estimation was already made on gross profit. The issue of excess stock was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had commenced its business activities, the interest earned on deposits could not be capitalized. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer in assessing the interest income as 'Income from Other Sources' was upheld. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's alternative submission. Citing the binding decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. VGR Foundation, the Tribunal held that if interest on deposits is assessed as income, then the proportionate interest paid on loans relatable to these fixed deposits should be allowed as a deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Act. As the computation of this interest was not on record, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to compute the quantum of interest paid on loans that relate to the fixed deposits and allow it as a deduction after verification. Thus, the alternate ground of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the entire bank credit of Rs. 1,29,98,619/- as business receipts and estimate income at 8% on this total amount. The artificial distinction between business receipts and cash deposits was deemed baseless.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the reassessment proceedings were void ab-initio as they were based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer without any tangible material. The Tribunal also concurred with the CIT(A) on merits, stating that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had applied his mind and taken a possible view. The Tribunal also directed rectification of the assessment order for an arithmetical error.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were bad-in-law because the show-cause notice issued by the AO was vague and did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Following a coordinate bench decision, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer arbitrarily accepted part of the source while rejecting the other part, as all deposits stemmed from the same source. The reasoning for rejection, based on a perceived delay in deposit, was not supported by law.
The Tribunal held that the entire accumulated interest income on the debentures up to the date of conversion was deemed to be received and taxable in the current year. Accepting the assessee's return without taxing the remaining interest was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the upward adjustment for notional interest on loans to AEs is not sustainable. It reasoned that the loans were in the nature of quasi-capital, intended to expand the assessee's business overseas, and were eventually converted into preference shares. The Tribunal noted that no such adjustments were made in prior years and that the assessee's domestic borrowings were for specific project and working capital requirements, dispelling the notion that these loans were funded by working capital. The decision in *Pr. CIT vs. Inductis India Pvt. Ltd.* was relied upon. Regarding the corporate guarantee fee, the Tribunal, following its own decision in *M/s Indian Public School Pvt. Ltd.* and the Bombay High Court's ruling in *Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.*, directed the AO to restrict the ALP adjustment to 0.5%. For the addition under Section 41(1), the Tribunal confirmed the addition concerning M/s Akar Granites, as the debt was written off. However, for the amount related to Mr. Velayudham Rajendran, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the outstanding amount in the assessee's books, as the assessee claimed no such outstanding existed and the liability was disputed.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was a pass-through book entry and not a real transaction for the assessee. Income Tax can only be levied on real income, not notional income. Therefore, no notional interest could be computed against the assessee.
The Tribunal, relying on previous decisions, held that the filing of Form 67 in terms of Rule 128 is directory in nature and not mandatory. The rule is for implementing the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the denial of FTC based solely on the belated filing of Form 67 is not justified.
The Tribunal held that the income offered on a presumptive basis under Section 44AE for lorries should be accepted, and no books of accounts are required. Similarly, agricultural income should be accepted as there were no adverse findings. The claim of past savings was also deemed acceptable. The addition for unexplained asset was restricted.
The Tribunal, relying on previous decisions, held that the filing of Form 67 in terms of Rule 128 is directory in nature and not mandatory. The rule is for implementing the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the denial of FTC based solely on the belated filing of Form 67 is not justified.
The Tribunal held that salary income earned for services rendered in the UK is not taxable in India as per Article 15(1) of the India-UK DTAA. The benefit of the DTAA is available even to non-residents.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided bank certificates showing breakup of deposits into Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) and non-SBNs. The total SBN deposits in both branches were Rs. 16,92,000/-, and the assessee had sufficient closing cash balance. The AO had not rejected the books of account nor provided concrete evidence to doubt the source of deposits.