Loading ITAT cases…
713 orders · Page 10 of 15
The Tribunal held that the notice issued for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were also invalid.
The Tribunal held that disallowing the entire purchase amount was not justified, considering the assessee dealt with numerous items and declared a consistent GP rate. However, the inability to produce suppliers and maintain stock registers indicated some inflation of purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. It was held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on reimbursement of expenses, and therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of interest disallowance, finding that investments were made from own funds. It directed the AO to recompute administrative expense disallowance based on investments yielding income. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of addition on account of understatement of capital gains, finding the reference to the DVO bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the profit estimated by the Assessing Officer at 12.5% was on the higher side, considering the VAT rate and the assessee's declared gross profit rates. The addition was sustained to the extent of 8% of the value of bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the loss incurred due to theft during business transit is incidental to the business activity. The rejection of the insurance claim does not negate the occurrence of the loss, and the evidence presented supports the fact that a theft had taken place.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had verified the assessee's own funds versus investments. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, directing the assessee to provide relevant details.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent for a prior assessment year with identical facts, reduced the addition to 2% of the value of alleged bogus purchases. This modification was made to the order of the CIT(A).
The tribunal upheld the CIT's decision to reject the registration application, finding that the assessee failed to demonstrate the charitable nature and genuineness of its objects. The appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's lack of interest and failure to prosecute.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not addressed the nature of the credit for the remaining Rs. 40,00,000/- and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the assessee's liability to repay.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made by the Assessing Officer purely on presumption without corroborating documentary evidence. The burden to prove the understatement of consideration lies with the Revenue, which was not discharged.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing all grounds of appeal. The assessee failed to provide evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits, loan receipts, and housing loan differences, and also failed to prove the claim of carried forward speculation loss.
The Tribunal, considering various High Court decisions, affirmed the First Appellate Authority's decision to sustain a disallowance at 15% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal agreed that while purchases might not be entirely bogus, the profit element embedded in them should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that income from inland transportation, when coupled with further shipping from an Indian port to a foreign country, falls under Article 8(2)(b)(ii) of the India-Singapore DTAA and is not taxable in India. The denial of treaty benefit for the 15 ships was thus incorrect.
The Tribunal decided that TDS provisions would not be applicable to payments made to foreign shipping companies via telegraphic transfer, even if made through an Indian bank. It also held that interest received on oil bonds, discount charges, and housing loan should be assessed as business income, and allowed depreciation based on the previous year's WDV.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed in terms of the CBDT circular as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. The assessee's cross-objection was also not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the transactions between the sister concerns were business transactions guided by commercial expediency and were in the nature of current account adjustments, not loans or advances as contemplated under Section 2(22)(e).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the addition to 3% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the profit margins in the diamond trade and relevant government recommendations. The reopening of assessment was also deemed valid.
The Tribunal corrected the inadvertent typographical mistake in its previous order. The date for examination of Mr. Kanan was rectified to 05/12/2017, and the rest of the order remains unchanged.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the reasons were beyond the control of the assessees. The issues related to the disallowance of interest expenditure and the computation of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) and AO, respectively, for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that payments for copyrighted software products are not royalty under Explanation 4 of Section 9(1) of the Act, thus deleting the disallowance. For other grounds, the Tribunal dismissed some appeals and remanded one for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that since the assessee followed the project completion method and had offered the income to tax in AY 2014-15, which was accepted by the department, the same income could not be taxed in AY 2011-12. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Bombay High Court.
The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) should have considered the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The matter was restored to the FAA for fresh adjudication after admitting the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order under Section 154 was passed beyond the four-year limitation period prescribed by Section 154(7). Therefore, the additions made were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank statements, demat account statements, and broker notes, to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal found no reason to suspect the transactions solely based on the broker's alleged involvement in a scam.
The Tribunal held that payments for copyrighted software products are not royalty under Explanation 4 of Section 9(1) of the Act, thus deleting the disallowance. For other grounds, the Tribunal dismissed some appeals and remanded one for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for a valid revision under Section 263, the assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The CIT failed to demonstrate how the order was prejudicial, and the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT's view on the AO's actions.