Loading ITAT cases…
545 orders · Page 6 of 11
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard to substantiate their claims regarding additions made under Section 69 and Section 68.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to treat purchases as bogus but increased the addition to 14.5% of the bogus purchases to account for the profit element. The assessee did not provide satisfactory explanations or disclose the parties involved in the bogus transactions.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which reduced the disallowance under Section 14A to 5% of fixed/semi-variable expenditure, following a previous decision for AY 2009-10.
The Tribunal held that while the AO was justified in estimating domestic expenses, the quantum of Rs. 6,00,000/- was not fully supported by material. Considering the withdrawals and the death of the assessee's mother, the addition was restricted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee accepted the rejection of books of accounts, estimation of profit was necessary. While the CIT(A)'s estimation of 7.87% was considered, the Tribunal increased it to 10% to meet the ends of justice, given the purchases were from the grey market.
The Tribunal held that the AO's method of determining the Annual Letting Value (ALV) using website data was not proper and constituted guesswork. The ALV of the first property was re-determined at Rs. 5/- per square foot per month.
The Tribunal held that the premium received on transfer of tenancy rights should be assessed as capital gains, following its own previous decisions and the principle of consistency. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the jurisdictional issue of reopening the assessment.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be justified as there was no incriminating material to prove concealment of income. The additions were based on estimation and not on concrete evidence found during the survey.
The Tribunal held that a payment made to a government agency in pursuance of an agreement cannot be treated as the assessee's income. It also ruled that the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act is allowable to a co-operative housing society.
The Tribunal held that the retrospective amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, allowing for no disallowance if the recipient has paid tax on the income, would apply. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of these details.
The Tribunal held that the loss of an eligible unit under Section 10B can be set off against the income of other units, even if they are ineligible or from different heads of income. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's rulings.
The Tribunal held that the denial of capitalization was based solely on a statement that was not properly confronted or cross-examined. Relying on a previous decision for a group concern, the Tribunal allowed the capitalization of both the fixed assets and steel purchases.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted for additions/disallowances made under normal provisions when the tax is ultimately computed under Section 115JB, if the tax under normal provisions is less than the tax under MAT. This is in line with Supreme Court and CBDT pronouncements.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if the current assessment year falls within the 10-year period for claiming the deduction. If it does, the claim should be allowed after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were suspicious, the assessee might have earned extra profit. They directed the AO to estimate the profit rate at 10% on the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A(1)(b) is payable on self-assessment tax paid in excess. This is supported by various High Court decisions, including the jurisdictional Bombay High Court, and the dismissal of a related SLP by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases might not be from the named parties, the goods were likely obtained from the 'gray market'. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in these purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount.
The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A as per the Income Tax Settlement Commission's order. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on capitalized expenses was allowed. The issue of brokerage expenses was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal confirmed the stand of the CIT(A) due to the assessee's repeated adjournments and absence. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The assessee's appeal regarding the classification of capital gains was admitted for further hearing.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the loss was speculative or F&O business loss was debatable. Given the complete documentation and STT payments, it was not a fit case for penalty as the assessee had neither concealed income nor furnished inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received for inconvenience due to construction is a capital receipt and not taxable as income from other sources. It was further observed that such receipt would reduce the cost of acquisition of the asset.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The assessee's appeal regarding the classification of capital gains was admitted for further hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit was bonafide and reasonable, especially considering the voluntary disclosure and affidavit filed. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit was bonafide and reasonable, especially since it was made voluntarily before any inquiry and supported by an affidavit. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained.
The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A as per the Income Tax Settlement Commission's order. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on capitalized expenses was allowed. The issue of brokerage expenses was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were suspicious, the assessee might have earned extra profit. They directed the AO to estimate the profit rate at 10% on the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal held that the penalty cannot be imposed solely on the basis of the quantum addition, especially when co-ordinate benches and the High Court have held similar payments as admissible business expenditure. The penalty proceedings are independent and must be decided on merits.
The tribunal held that the assessee had good and sufficient reasons for the delay in depositing the self-assessment tax due to a severe financial crunch. The lower authorities had not considered this aspect properly and had arrived at self-serving observations.
The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessment years, additions under Section 153A are unsustainable if not backed by incriminating material found during the search. Since the seized documents were not considered incriminating, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the rebate under Section 88E is allowable while computing tax liability under Section 115JB, following the decisions of the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts. These courts held that the purpose of Section 88E is to provide credit for STT paid, and this should apply equally to tax computed under normal provisions and under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal found that the assessee prima facie explained the source of both additions. However, since the evidence was not filed before the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue of unsecured loans to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. For the jewellery addition, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute income considering the CBDT guidelines on permissible limits of jewellery for married ladies.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a valid trust and that the income was diverted by overriding title. Therefore, the interest income was not taxable in the hands of the trust.
The Tribunal held that hoarding expenses were revenue in nature, following its own previous decisions on identical facts. It also allowed the full claim for interest expenses, relying on a coordinate bench ruling that such expenses were incurred for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank statements and TDS certificates, to substantiate the disallowed expenses. Therefore, the penalty was wrongly imposed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted as interest-bearing funds were utilized for business purposes and secured loans were nil in the year under consideration. However, the recomputation of capital gains was upheld as it was covered by a Special Bench decision.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained as there was no incriminating material to prove concealment of income beyond doubt. The additions were based on estimation, and the AO failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on software purchase as the relevant financial year was prior to the amendment that brought royalty under Section 194J. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the premium received on transfer of tenancy rights should be assessed as capital gains, following its own previous decisions and the principle of consistency. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the jurisdictional issue of reopening the assessment.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the profit derived from the sale of 'shrink-wrapped' software falls under business profits and not royalty. Since the assessee had no permanent establishment in India, these business profits were not taxable in India.
The Tribunal noted that the facts were identical to the assessee's brother's case, where the Tribunal had directed the AO to set off cash deposits against cash withdrawals made in the same financial year. Therefore, the AO was directed to do the same in this case.
The Tribunal held that the provision for wage revision was allowable as a deduction, following its own precedent. Regarding foreign branch income, it was held that such income is taxable in India, and credit for foreign taxes paid would be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the sale of mutual funds by the trust, even with frequent transactions, did not constitute a business activity of trade. The investments were made as per Section 11(5) for better yield, and the activity was incidental to the trust's objects, with separate books of account maintained.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to produce purchase bills, payment details, and complete party information. The AO was directed to verify related sales and estimate profit accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the transaction and the source of funds were explained. Biometrix had obtained a loan from ICICI Bank, Singapore, which was secured by a put and call option agreement with an Indian group company. The Tribunal found that Biometrix met the conditions under the India-Singapore DTAA to be considered a genuine entity.
The Tribunal held that when the assessee provides documentary evidence like bank statements, stock statements, and transport invoices, and it's established that goods were indeed purchased, though possibly from different sources than those billed, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added, not the entire purchase amount.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10A should be computed independently for each eligible undertaking before considering set-off of losses or brought forward losses. It followed the Supreme Court's decision in Yokogawa India Ltd. regarding the stage of deduction.
The Tribunal held that the benefit of Article 8 of the DTAA cannot be denied for transportation under slot charter or joint service arrangements, as these fall under 'operation of ships'. However, for ships where no documentation was provided, the benefit was denied.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, finding that the discrepancies were bona fide mistakes and not deliberate attempts to conceal income. The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal of the Revenue had already been dismissed.