Loading ITAT cases…
713 orders · Page 8 of 15
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous, as the assessee had consistently been granted exemption in previous years without any change in its constitution. The twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met, and the assessee was not hit by Section 13(1)(b).
The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct sufficient investigation, especially regarding payments made by account payee cheques and bank statements. Since the assessee provided quantitative details of stock and corresponding sales, and the AO did not dispute the sales receipts, the purchases could not be entirely denied.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct sufficient investigation, especially regarding payments made by account payee cheques and bank statements. Since the assessee provided quantitative details of stock and corresponding sales, and the AO did not dispute the sales receipts, the purchases could not be entirely denied.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books of account. However, it held that a separate penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited could not be levied simultaneously with the penalty under Section 271A.
The Tribunal held that the indexed cost of acquisition should be computed with reference to the year the previous owner acquired the asset, following High Court judgments. It also upheld the deletion of additions made on account of client code changes, citing previous tribunal rulings that such changes can be due to human error and are permissible under certain conditions.
The Tribunal held that the non-furnishing of reasons for reassessment and the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) are fatal defects that invalidate the assessment proceedings. The AO failed to provide evidence of issuing the notice or supplying the recorded reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which directs that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lac should not be filed or pressed. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) as the assessee provided no reasons for non-compliance with the notice. Since the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal either, the appeal was decided ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that since the transaction ultimately resulted in a capital loss, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable. It also noted that the initial capital gain arose due to deeming provisions and the assessee had a bonafide belief.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of the remaining 50% of purchases. The revenue failed to provide conclusive evidence that the purchases were entirely bogus or that the goods were not consumed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain 25% of the alleged bogus purchases as a disallowance. This was considered a correct view to cover potential revenue leakage, especially since the assessee had records of goods received and sold.
The Tribunal held that the period of holding of previous holders is to be included for allowing the benefit of indexation. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow indexation from 01/04/1981, following the Bombay High Court judgment, was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the contentious issues could be resolved by examining relevant accounts and primary documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after allowing the assessee an opportunity to file complete documentation.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in considering a notional provision for bad debts for assessment years when the assessee was exempt from tax. The restriction under the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) should only apply to actual provisions made under Section 36(1)(viia).
The Tribunal held that the reassessment orders for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 were invalid due to the non-issuance of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. For AY 2011-12, the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 12.50% on alleged bogus purchases was upheld, but the calculation method was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that income earned by a co-operative credit society from interest on deposits with co-operative banks is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d). It followed a Karnataka High Court judgment which held that a co-operative bank is a species of co-operative society and thus covered by the deduction.
The Tribunal held that if a property was previously let out and remained vacant, it should be assessed under Section 23(1)(c) and not deemed let out. However, disallowance of 10% of vehicle and telephone expenses was upheld due to lack of details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The penalty order was quashed because the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind and was not specific about the charge for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on goodwill, finding that it was an accounting entry for excess consideration on business sale and not an unexplained expenditure. The issues of depreciation on intellectual property and disallowance of operating/administrative expenses were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the first issue and reduce the addition to the peak credit after verification. For the second issue, the Tribunal deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction related to taking over his father's business.
The Tribunal held that the bad debts written off were not related to earlier provisions and allowed the deduction. For depreciation, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of evidence. The claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was also directed to be allowed as per law.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was justified in revising the AO's order regarding the verification of the source of investment, as the AO had failed to conduct proper inquiries. However, the Pr. CIT's revision regarding the applicability of Section 50C in the hands of the seller was not sustainable as it pertained to a third party.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing confirmations, bank statements, and other documentary evidence. The Tribunal found that the evidence proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2010-11, the addition should be restricted to 6% of the purchase value, considering the transactional GP rate was higher than the average. For AY 2011-12, no such working was provided, so the addition of 12.50% was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to the Gross Profit (GP) rate declared by the assessee, not the Net Profit (NP) rate. The CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the GP rate of 6.68% was upheld.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim to carry forward the deficit, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the jurisdictional High Court's decision is binding.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of profit on alleged bogus purchases, estimating it at 12.50%. This was based on the fact that suppliers admitted to providing accommodation bills and the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee could not prove genuine purchases and the suppliers were found to be bogus, an estimation of profit was necessary. The addition was restricted to 20% of the bogus purchases as agreed by the assessee's counsel.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing confirmations, bank statements, and other documentary evidence. The Tribunal found that the evidence proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to interest on the self-occupied property as possession was not taken. The issue of expenses claimed against hire charges was restored to the AO for verification of agreements and finance. The addition for the gift was set aside and restored to the AO for re-adjudication with directions for evidence submission.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions by providing sufficient documentary evidence. The Assessing Officer failed to rebut this evidence.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 directs that no appeal should be filed before the Tribunal if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 10 lac. This instruction applies to pending appeals as well.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's business activities had not commenced, certain expenses are necessary to maintain its corporate structure. It directed the AO to allow 25% of salary expenses and 50% of office expenses as revenue expenditure, while confirming disallowance of other expenses.
The Tribunal held that a mere claim which is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the assessee made a claim based on evidence and it was not accepted, it does not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal found that the tax authorities did not provide proper reasons for assessing commission income under 'Income from other sources' and for disallowing expenses. The disallowance of loss set-off also lacked proper application of Section 71.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not genuine from the stated parties, the corresponding sales were accounted for. Therefore, the addition should be restricted to the profit margin on purchases made from the open market, not the entire purchase value.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as the assessee had sufficient own funds for investments. The disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was sustained or restricted to amounts not exceeding dividend income. The adjustment to book profit under Section 115JB for expenses relatable to exempt income was restored to the AO for re-computation. The provision for warranty expenses was held to be an ascertained liability, and no adjustment was warranted for book profit computation.
The Tribunal held that while additions on account of bogus purchases were justified, a 100% disallowance was unreasonable. The addition was restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, and the issue of bad debt disallowance was remanded to the CIT(A). The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that while additions on account of bogus purchases were justified, a 100% disallowance was unreasonable. The addition was restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, and the issue of bad debt disallowance was remanded to the CIT(A). The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.
The CIT(A) agreed that the purchases were not genuine but found the AO's 12.5% profit estimation unrealistic, considering the assessee's existing profit margin and industry norms. The CIT(A) reduced the profit addition to 5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element of the bogus purchases, rather than the entire amount. The Tribunal agreed that since sales were not doubted, the entire purchase amount could not be added as income.