Loading ITAT cases…
713 orders · Page 9 of 15
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the profit element embedded in the purchases, as the genuineness of sales was not doubted. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the 12.5% profit margin determined by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the purchases were for complimentary items and that the AO himself had allowed 75% of such purchases in prior assessment years. The Tribunal directed the AO to sustain the addition to the extent of 25% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had reconciled the difference, which primarily arose from an opening balance. Therefore, the addition made during the year under consideration was not justified.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D was not applicable as the dividend income was from mutual funds redeemed during the year. A nominal disallowance of Rs. 10,000 was considered appropriate, in addition to the interest disallowance.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues afresh after hearing the assessee, promoting the cause of justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the carry forward of the deficit as it followed a binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the estimation of profit at 12.5% on unproven purchases was reasonable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's own past profit rates were around 6%, and the CIT(A)'s estimation was fair.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that credit card processing fees are bank charges and not commission attracting Section 194H, thus deleting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). It also affirmed the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowances for administrative and finance costs to the income earned from circular trading, finding these costs not attributable to such minimal transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that credit card processing fees are bank charges and not commission attracting Section 194H, thus deleting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). It also affirmed the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowances for administrative and finance costs to the income earned from circular trading, finding these costs not attributable to such minimal transactions.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's application for condoning the delay. The reason provided for the delay was considered vague and lacked sufficient evidence of due diligence.
The Tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had not provided sufficient reasoning for taxing 50% of the management charges. The matter was restored to the FAA for fresh adjudication after further investigation.
The Tribunal followed its previous order in the assessee's wife's case, directing the AO to recompute the capital gains after considering investments made until the due date for filing a return under Section 139(4).
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P, following the decisions of a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own cases. The Tribunal found that the activities of lending to members do not constitute banking as defined, especially since the public is not involved and there is no RBI approval.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty, following its own prior decision for AY 2009-10 where similar facts led to penalty deletion. The delay was considered due to genuine difficulties faced by the assessee.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty, following its own prior decision for AY 2009-10 where similar facts led to penalty deletion. The delay was considered due to genuine difficulties faced by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should only consider investments that yielded dividend income. For book profits under Section 115JB, the computation should not resort to Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
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 the date of possession of the new residential property should be considered for calculating the eligibility period for deduction under Section 54. This decision was based on the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court and a coordinate bench.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should only consider investments that yielded dividend income. For book profits under Section 115JB, the computation should not resort to Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the penalty appeal due to bonafide reasons. It held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive as the assessee made a surrender to buy peace due to being in judicial custody and unable to furnish evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the penalty appeal due to bonafide reasons. It held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive as the assessee made a surrender to buy peace due to being in judicial custody and unable to furnish evidence.
The Tribunal held that strategic investments should be excluded when calculating disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), following a coordinate bench's decision. Consequently, the disallowance was restricted to the amount calculated after excluding these strategic investments.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element of the bogus purchases, acknowledging that the goods were consumed in the assessee's business. The full disallowance of purchases was deemed unwarranted.
The Tribunal followed its previous order for an earlier assessment year and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to re-examine the contentions regarding investments made from own funds and to consider only those investments that yielded dividend income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. They cited precedents where similar estimations were made, especially when sales were not disputed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. They cited precedents where similar estimations were made, especially when sales were not disputed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases, not the entire amount. It reasoned that the assessee's sales were not disputed, and disallowing entire purchases would lead to absurd profits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition to 15% of the non-genuine purchases, considering the profit element and various High Court judgments. The entire purchases cannot be added solely because parties were not produced.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the addition. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s findings were based on evidence and legal principles, particularly that the stock statement was inflated to avail credit facilities and was not verified by the bank.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 directs that no appeal should be filed if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 10 lac. This instruction applies to pending appeals as well.
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 the lease rental income is assessable under the head 'Income from other sources' as the assessee never commenced business operations. However, the disallowance of remaining expenses requires fresh examination by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition itself, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted by a previous Tribunal order. Since the primary addition was removed, the penalty levied on it could not survive.