Loading ITAT cases…
607 orders · Page 10 of 13
The assessee applied to withdraw the appeal as the tax demand was settled under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for estimating disallowance was acceptable but noted an inconsistency in the method applied. To maintain consistency, the Tribunal directed that the disallowance for AY 2010-11 should also be sustained at 25% of the value of purchases, similar to AY 2009-10.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 for cash deposits were invalid as the bank accounts were not found during the search. For the addition under Section 69C, the Tribunal confirmed a reduced amount of `36 lacs as undisclosed investment.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be deemed entirely bogus solely because suppliers were listed as hawala dealers or enquiry letters were unserved, especially when payments were made via account payee cheques and goods were recorded. However, a profit element in such purchases can be added.
The Tribunal upheld the addition on bogus purchases, finding that the assessee failed to discharge its burden of proof. The profit rate of 6.5% applied by the CIT(A) was deemed reasonable given the facts.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on the basis of which the penalty was levied was deleted by a coordinate bench, the penalty order is not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty order would not survive.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 for cash deposits were invalid as the bank accounts were not found during the search. For the addition under Section 69C, the Tribunal confirmed a reduced amount of `36 lacs as undisclosed investment.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 for cash deposits were invalid as the bank accounts were not found during the search. For the addition under Section 69C, the Tribunal confirmed a reduced amount of `36 lacs as undisclosed investment.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 for cash deposits were invalid as the bank accounts were not found during the search. For the addition under Section 69C, the Tribunal confirmed a reduced amount of `36 lacs as undisclosed investment.
The Tribunal found that the income was partly from rental arrangements and partly for services rendered. The facts were not sufficiently appreciated by the lower authorities to determine the correct head of income for each part.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was initiated merely for inquiry without tangible material, but decided the issues on merit. The Tribunal found that the loan was genuine and directed deletion of the addition, and also allowed the carry forward of business loss.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were unproved, the assessee, being a trader, was entitled to retain the profit element on these purchases. Therefore, only a portion of the purchase amount should be added back.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 6% on the alleged bogus purchases, rather than disallowing the entire amount. The reasoning was that sales were accepted, and disallowing all purchases would lead to an absurd profit margin.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect, excluding surcharge and education cess, was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had invalidly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263. The Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries on all issues raised by the PCIT, and the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal also noted that the amendment to Section 263 was prospective.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not leviable. The assessee had offered the additional income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation, had filed the return and paid taxes, and had explained the manner of earning the business income which resulted in excess cash.
The Tribunal held that the payments were for civil and repair works, not bogus purchases, as evidenced by the nature of the invoices and the documentation provided by the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment.
The Tribunal decided to follow the decision of a co-ordinate bench for AY 2010-11, which had remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify the factual matrix and pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income was earned. It also held that no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) can be made if the payee has offered the amount as income, or if tax was deducted at a lower rate. The Department's ground regarding Rule 46A violation was dismissed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that they were not explicitly asked for such details by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) wrongly rejected the evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to furnish requisite details.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's plea for considering segmental data for engineering services separately from engineering goods was cogent. The Tribunal found that the combined segment data used by the TPO was not appropriate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, citing High Court decisions that allow for profit element inclusion in such cases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income was earned. It also held that no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) can be made if the payee has offered the amount as income, or if tax was deducted at a lower rate. The Department's ground regarding Rule 46A violation was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. It was held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Explanation 5(2) to Section 271(1)(c) for the investment in shares, as it was a movable asset disclosed under Section 132(4).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 6% on the alleged bogus purchases, rather than disallowing the entire amount. The reasoning was that sales were accepted, and disallowing all purchases would lead to an absurd profit margin.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance for commission expenses, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus and the CIT(A) had correctly considered the facts. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance for legal expenses, agreeing that no TDS was required due to the DTAA and the services being rendered outside India.
The Tribunal held that while the AO could suspect the purchases due to the suppliers' non-appearance, the AO failed to conduct further investigation. Since the assessee made payments by account payee cheques and the sales were not disputed, the purchases could not be entirely disallowed. However, a disallowance based on a lower GP rate was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CIT(A) was on the higher side and directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the disputed purchases. The Tribunal emphasized that only the profit component of unverified transactions is taxable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 regarding the method of accounting. It was noted that the assessee consistently followed the project completion method, which was previously upheld. Directions for fresh inquiry into expenditures were also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's direction to re-examine the accounting method and expenses was not sustainable as the AO had already examined them. However, the direction to examine service tax, TDS, and VAT provisions was upheld as the AO's order was silent on these issues.
The Tribunal found the AO's assessment order to be laconic and lacking proper application of mind on crucial issues. The CIT's direction to re-examine these aspects was deemed cogent and justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in withdrawing the TDS credit. It noted that the corresponding TDS had not been claimed by the resulting company, and the TDS certificates bore the assessee's PAN.
The Tribunal held that corporate gifts are valid and not taxable as income. The receipt from the trust was considered a valid gift and therefore not taxable.
The Tribunal held that corporate gifts are valid and not taxable as income. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that corporate gifts are valid and not taxable as income. The receipt from the trust was considered a valid gift and therefore not taxable.
The assessee's counsel requested withdrawal of the appeal due to a low tax effect. The Revenue did not object, and the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CIT(A) was on the higher side and directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the disputed purchases. The Tribunal emphasized that only the profit component of unverified transactions is taxable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee only owned a portion of the property and had entered into a rental agreement for both jointly owned properties. Therefore, taxing the entire rental income in the assessee's hands was incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already declared a 14% gross profit rate. Therefore, it directed the AO to restrict the addition by estimating a further profit of 8% on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was not in accordance with Section 23 of the Act as it was based on estimation without proper enquiry. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was not in accordance with Section 23 of the Act as it was based on estimation without proper enquiry. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. Since the AO rectified the mistakes, the basis for the appeal no longer survived.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised the monetary threshold for filing appeals by the Revenue to Rs. 10 lakhs, applies retrospectively. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable.