Loading ITAT cases…
1,215 orders · Page 25 of 25
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee is in the construction business and that some cash turnover is possible, with no dispute regarding the corresponding sales. It noted that various recent judicial precedents have decided the issue of bogus purchases with divergent views. Faced with these facts and divergent views, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to allow a lumpsum disallowance at 6% of the alleged bogus purchases for both assessment years. This disallowance amounts to Rs. 3,40,17,291 in AY 2020-21 and Rs. 23,79,987 in AY 2021-22. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computations are to follow as per law. No other ground or argument was pressed.
The Tribunal held that while some marketing expenses might be allowable, the entire amount paid to the AE was not justified without proper documentation. Regarding the provision for refunds, the Tribunal remanded the issue for a detailed examination of past provisions versus actual refunds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus of establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. The loan was accepted as genuine in the year of disbursement, and relevant documents like the loan agreement, RBI certificate, and bank statements were furnished. Therefore, no disallowance of interest payment could be made in the subsequent assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were required to be restricted to commission income at 0.50% on transactions appearing in pocket diaries, considering the assessee's admission of being a facilitator of accommodation entries. Additions based on loose sheets were also to be re-examined.
The Tribunal held that revenue transfers from global deals did not constitute royalty as no software duplication occurred in India under those agreements. It also noted that taxing such revenue as royalty would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the action of the PCIT under Section 263 was fatally hit because the issue was debatable. When the AO has taken a considered view, and there are two possible interpretations supported by different case laws, the PCIT cannot revise the order merely because he disagrees with the AO's view, especially when the AO's action is not unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on material seized during a search and the exception under proviso (c) to Section 148A of the Act was applicable. However, on merits, considering the joint purchase, the assessee is liable only for 50% of the on-money payment.
The Tribunal held that the AO relied on an investigation report without independently considering the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) had correctly concluded that the loan transaction was genuine after examining the provided documents, including the loan agreement and bank statements of both parties.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were required to be restricted to commission income at 0.50% on transactions appearing in pocket diaries, considering the assessee's admission of being a facilitator of accommodation entries. Additions based on loose sheets were also to be re-examined.
The Tribunal held that revenue transfers from global deals did not constitute royalty as no software duplication occurred in India under those agreements. It also noted that taxing such revenue as royalty would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were required to be restricted to commission income at 0.50% on transactions appearing in pocket diaries, considering the assessee's admission of being a facilitator of accommodation entries. Additions based on loose sheets were also to be re-examined.
The Tribunal held that revenue transfers from global deals did not constitute royalty as no software duplication occurred in India under those agreements. It also noted that taxing such revenue as royalty would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that revenue transfers from global deals did not constitute royalty as no software duplication occurred in India under those agreements. It also noted that taxing such revenue as royalty would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that revenue transfers from global deals to OIPL did not constitute royalty taxable in India as no software duplication occurred. It also noted that taxing such revenue in the hands of the assessee would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Moreover, since the quantum appeal was still pending before the CIT(A), there was no reason for the penalty to survive for adjudication.