Loading ITAT cases…
662 orders · Page 12 of 14
The Tribunal held that the entire purchases could not be treated as income as there was movement of goods and sales were accepted. The profit margin of 5% as determined by the CIT(A) was considered reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A, especially concerning Rule 8D, should be decided based on the Apex Court's ruling in Maxopp Investments Ltd. They found that for certain assessment years, the disallowance of Rs. 12.07 crores was not maintainable and allowed the assessee's ground.
The Tribunal upheld the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India but set aside the issue of profit attribution back to the AO for re-adjudication. Certain grounds related to disallowances were also allowed with directions for further verification.
The Tribunal held that the addition for foreign travel was not justified as the assessee did not incur the expenditure and it was part of a company's entourage. For the cash found, the Tribunal allowed relief for amounts belonging to the assessee's parents but confirmed the addition for the amount belonging to the wife due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal, following established legal precedents, held that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The assessee was given liberty to pray for a recall of the order if they were serious about pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to appear and pursue the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to pray for recall of the order if serious about pursuing the appeal.
The tribunal, following established legal precedents, held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court is not bound to answer a reference if the party at whose instance it was made fails to appear or take necessary steps.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the assessee's ground regarding the opportunity for cross-examination of the 'entry provider' and the provision of adverse material. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on this issue.
The Tribunal held that the purchase of shares was done off-market in physical form with cash payments, making the transactions non-verifiable and against human probability. The assessee failed to substantiate the source of purchase transactions.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not consider crucial evidence like opening cash balances of loan creditors and maturity proceeds of fixed deposits by a share applicant. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the payment of technical fees was not allowable as the assessee did not undertake manufacturing operations, thus no corresponding benefit arose. The AO's disallowance of advertisement expenses was also set aside as the expenditure was incurred for business purposes and led to increased turnover.
The Tribunal held that all three issues require fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. The AO needs to verify the nature of managerial remuneration, the treatment of the advance written off in prior years, and the timely deposit of professional tax.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal. For the net profit addition, it was remanded to the AO to avoid double addition. For sundry creditors, it was remanded for the assessee to substantiate with credible evidence. For unsecured loans, it was remanded for the AO to verify the submitted details.
The Tribunal held that reimbursements for expenses like travel, training, and consultancy are not taxable in India if they are on actual basis and supported by invoices and CA certificates. For software and license renewals, the Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court ruling that payments for the use of copyrighted software are not royalty.
The Tribunal noted that no one appeared on behalf of the assessee for the hearing, nor was any adjournment requested. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the assessee's ground regarding the opportunity for cross-examination of the 'entry provider' and the provision of adverse material. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on this issue.
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly recorded satisfaction for invoking Section 14A, but for one assessment year, the disallowance claim needed to be substantiated before the AO. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the issue was debatable and the assessee had not concealed income.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries regarding the long-term capital gains, and the Pr. CIT had not conducted independent inquiries before invoking Section 263. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to decide the assessee's objections regarding the reopening of assessment by passing a speaking order. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to first decide the objections and then proceed with the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to follow the rule of consistency and the directions of the Tribunal by not dropping proceedings for AY 2004-05, despite having done so for AY 2003-04 based on the same rectified ITAT order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to substantiate the genuineness of the alleged share transactions. The statement of Jai Kishan Poddar, who admitted to facilitating bogus LTCG through penny stocks like CCL International Ltd., was considered significant.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case, where similar additions for closing stock valuation were deleted. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) as the AO had wrongly disturbed the accepted method of accounting.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Rs. 1.75 crores which was included twice in the assessee's income due to a bona fide mistake. It also upheld the restriction of addition on account of bogus purchases to Rs. 78,82,615/-.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Rs. 1.75 crores which was included twice in the assessee's income due to a bona fide mistake. It also upheld the restriction of addition on account of bogus purchases to Rs. 78,82,615/-.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Rs. 1.75 crores which was included twice in the assessee's income due to a bona fide mistake. It also upheld the restriction of addition on account of bogus purchases to Rs. 78,82,615/-.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's role as an intermediary and the actual payer of commission needed verification. It noted that if the telecom company directly paid commission to retailers after deducting TDS, the assessee might not be liable for TDS.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the assessee's ground regarding the opportunity for cross-examination of the 'entry provider' and the provision of adverse material. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on this issue.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to substantiate the genuineness of the alleged share transactions. The statement of Jai Kishan Poddar, who admitted to facilitating bogus LTCG through penny stocks like CCL International Ltd., was considered significant.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, which is the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the assessee's ground regarding the opportunity for cross-examination of the 'entry provider' and the provision of adverse material. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on this issue.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not present for the hearing and had not requested an adjournment, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim that the impugned land was agricultural in nature before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for re-examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the disallowance of interest on a flat used for personal purposes, an industrial plot not yet in use, and an advance treated as personal. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that an order giving effect to an appellate order is appealable under Section 246A. The CIT(A) was incorrect in holding that such orders were not appealable, and the dismissal of the assessee's appeals was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation at 60% on POS terminals, considering them as computers. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat advertisement expenses as revenue expenditure, disallowing the AO's addition.
The Tribunal held that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted because the assessee failed to appear and prosecute the appeal. The Tribunal cited various precedents emphasizing the need to effectively pursue an appeal, not just file it.
The Tribunal held that an order giving effect to an appellate order is appealable under Section 246A. The CIT(A) was incorrect in holding that such orders were not appealable, and the dismissal of the assessee's appeals was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the amount paid to M/s Om Ayurvedic General Store was a trade advance against sales and not a deposit or loan, thus not violating Section 269T. The payment to Shri Gopal Dixit was also considered a settlement of liability through a transfer entry, not attracting the penalty.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the assessee's claim under Section 10AA, taking into account Form 56F and providing the assessee with an opportunity to present its case. This was done with the consent of both parties.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the donations as anonymous without proper verification. It also noted that the assessee had disclosed the donations and expenditures. The matter of depreciation was also to be re-examined.
The Tribunal held that an order giving effect to an appellate order is appealable under Section 246A. The CIT(A) was incorrect in holding that such orders were not appealable, and the dismissal of the assessee's appeals was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that an order giving effect to an appellate order is appealable under Section 246A. The CIT(A) was incorrect in holding that such orders were not appealable, and the dismissal of the assessee's appeals was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly allowed depreciation and additional depreciation as the assets were of a nature that could be used immediately after purchase, and the AO denied it without justification. The Tribunal also found the 15% interest paid on unsecured loans to be reasonable, citing previous ITAT decisions.