Loading ITAT cases…
713 orders · Page 11 of 15
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 held that the assessment order was invalid because mandatory notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were not properly served on the assessee. The notices were sent to an incorrect address, and the Revenue failed to provide evidence of proper service.
The Tribunal restored the issue of treating capital gains as business income to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the ground for statistical purposes. Additions on account of low withdrawals were allowed. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases, relying on High Court judgments. The Tribunal found that only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty. It noted infirmities in the Hundies and referenced a precedent that an amount cannot be treated as income for assessment and a loan for penalty purposes simultaneously.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had reduced the estimated profit to 0.15% in the quantum appeal. Following this precedent and other similar cases where penalties were cancelled, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee can raise a plea not taken before the assessing authorities, especially when a note was appended to the return indicating the claim was made by way of abundant caution. The Tribunal allowed various grounds of appeal, directing the exclusion of certain expenses from the taxable value of fringe benefit.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided quantitative details of stock and corresponding sales, and the AO accepted the sales receipts, the purchases could not be denied. Payments were made by account payee cheques, and the AO did not conduct sufficient investigation to prove the purchases were not made.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction in the assessment order to initiate penalty proceedings and that the penalty notice was not specific. Therefore, the penalty order was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided quantitative details of stock and corresponding sales, and the AO accepted the sales receipts, the purchases could not be denied. Payments were made by account payee cheques, and the AO did not conduct sufficient investigation to prove the purchases were not made.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements or information implicated the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after providing the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements or information implicated the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after providing the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided quantitative details of stock and corresponding sales, and the AO accepted the sales receipts, the purchases could not be denied. Payments were made by account payee cheques, and the AO did not conduct sufficient investigation to prove the purchases were not made.
The Tribunal held that merely because suppliers were not found or confirmed, it cannot be presumed that purchases were not made, especially when payments were by cheque and sales were accepted. The addition was restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were found to be bogus, a 100% disallowance might not be appropriate when sales are not doubted. It directed that the disallowance be limited to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.