Loading ITAT cases…
607 orders · Page 3 of 13
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases from the listed parties, the addition should be restricted to the profit element involved in purchases from unidentified parties. The addition was further reduced to 8% of the aggregate purchase value.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of Form 26AS, especially when the assessee has provided revised Form 26AS rectifying earlier mistakes. The CIT(A) failed to consider the revised Form 26AS.
The Tribunal held that simply because the parties were not produced, the entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus, especially when payments were made through banking channels and sales were accepted. The disallowance was restricted to the profit element.
The Tribunal held that since the purchases were from hawala parties, a profit rate should be applied to the bogus purchases. The AO was directed to apply a profit rate of 12.5% to the disallowed amount.
The Tribunal followed its own previous orders for the assessee, deleting the penalty related to the Transfer Pricing Adjustment. It also upheld the deletion of penalty concerning short-term capital gains on the sale of a building, relying on High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the purchases from M/s Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd. were indeed bogus. However, the addition should be restricted to the profit element involved in making such purchases from the open/grey market, which was determined to be 4% of the purchase value.
The Tribunal held that hedging losses on Menthol Oil are integral to the Jammu unit's business and eligible for Section 80IB deduction. Regarding Section 14A, the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction, so the disallowance was restricted to 5% of dividend income.
The Tribunal held that education cess is not to be included in the 'tax effect' for determining the maintainability of an appeal as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. Since the tax effect exclusive of education cess was below the threshold, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that disallowances made under Section 14A cannot be considered while computing book profit under Section 115JB. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases from the listed parties, the addition should be restricted to the profit element involved in purchases from unidentified parties. The addition was further reduced to 8% of the aggregate purchase value.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment based on information about bogus purchases from hawala parties. The reopening was therefore considered valid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in relying on the Bombay High Court judgment in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. The additions made by the AO were not based on incriminating material found during the search, and thus, were not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by its own earlier decisions and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Services. Therefore, depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was allowed as application of income under Section 11.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of interest to the AO for verification of utilization of short-term borrowings. The disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was also set aside and remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that a percentage of profit should be added to account for potential savings from VAT and other taxes on gray market purchases. The addition of 12.5% of bogus purchases was deemed reasonable.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) as the issue was identical to a previous year's case decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not clear about the specific charge for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Samson Perinchery, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim of depreciation by following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection. The revenue failed to present any contrary law or material.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases is taxable, not the entire transaction. A disallowance of 12.5% of the impugned purchases was considered reasonable to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the estimated profit to 8% of total sales, finding it reasonable. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), agreeing that no further disallowance can be made when income is assessed on an estimation basis.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 8,67,592/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as the assessee's own funds exceeded its investments. It confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 1,58,760/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) for administrative expenses. The disallowance for foreign travel expenses was upheld. The reference to the TPO was confirmed, and the direction to recalculate interest rates for inter-company loans based on LIBOR + 300 bps was upheld.
The Tribunal restored the issue of managerial remuneration to the CIT(A) for verification of Central Government approval. For bogus purchases, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order estimating profit at 25% but rectified the total amount of bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. It reasoned that while the purchases themselves might not be entirely bogus, the profit element embedded in transactions with unverified parties is taxable.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided complete purchase bills, vouchers, and made payments by account payee cheques, and the Revenue did not controvert these facts, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that once the primary addition on which penalty was levied is deleted by the ITAT (for Section 80IA), the penalty cannot survive. For Section 35D, the CIT(A) found no concealment or inaccurate particulars due to a bonafide calculation error.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and found that the disallowance of depreciation was not justified. It also held that broken period interest paid on securities held as stock-in-trade is allowable as a revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the TPO/AO and directed them to make a fresh assessment. This was to be done after examining the comparables in light of the Tribunal's observations and giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the commission paid to directors was a business expenditure and not a dividend, especially since it was paid within the limits prescribed by the Companies Act and was consistent with past practice. The Tribunal also held that late payments of PF/ESIC contributions were deductible if made before the due date of filing the income tax return.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate net profit at 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases, considering the profit element embedded in such transactions. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue of VAT paid on these purchases back to the AO for verification and potential credit.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity as it correctly followed the ITAT's prior decision on identical facts. The Tribunal noted that the earlier decision had not been altered by any higher authority.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of lease rental expenditure, following a coordinate bench's order. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s modification of the 80IA deduction, agreeing with the reasoning provided.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, pending the CBDT's decision on the assessee's application for approval under Section 10(23C)(vi). The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding payments for books, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that hedging losses on Menthol Oil are integral to the Jammu unit's business and eligible for Section 80IB deduction. Regarding Section 14A, the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction, so the disallowance was restricted to 5% of dividend income.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was incorrect in revising the assessment regarding bogus purchases as the AO had considered the issue. However, the PCIT was correct in revising the assessment concerning the discrepancy in commission income, as this issue was not examined by the AO.
The Tribunal held that prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oil is not technical services and is covered by Section 44BB. It also noted that the assessee received payment from a foreign company and not from ONGC, thus excluding the applicability of Section 115A.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT's instructions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding it to be reasoned. The Tribunal found no material to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal found the profit estimated by the CIT(A) at 8.72% to be slightly lower. Therefore, it directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 10% on the bogus purchases and assess the income accordingly.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to 20% for stock-in-trade and deleted the addition for non-deduction of TDS on sub-brokerage and commission, as transactions in securities are excluded from Section 194H.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It directed the AO to verify if the recipient parties had declared the interest income in AY 2004-05 and, if confirmed, to delete the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It directed the AO to verify if the recipient parties had declared the interest income in AY 2004-05 and, if confirmed, to delete the addition.
The Tribunal restored the matters concerning transportation and cutting/storage charges to the AO to verify if the payees had included the receipts in their income and paid taxes. For brokerage and commission, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if payments to individual brokers were below the threshold limit for TDS deduction.
The Tribunal held that purchases supported by invoices and paid via account payee cheques, reflected in bank statements and audited books, should not be entirely disallowed based solely on the suppliers being declared hawala dealers. However, a partial addition was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal has corrected a typographical error in the assessee's address in its previous order. The correct name of the building where the assessee is located is 'Bajaj Bhavan', not 'Bahah Bhavna'.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified based on information received from the Investigation Wing. However, it found that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not possess sufficient cogent material to prove the receipt of on-money by the assessee, relying solely on third-party documents and statements.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable as there was no international transaction in the current year and no income was earned. The conversion of outstanding fees into a shareholder deposit was an approved arrangement.
The Tribunal held that the contract was clearly divisible, with separate scopes of work and payments for each consortium member. Offshore supplies and services were not taxable in India as they lacked sufficient territorial nexus and were not rendered in India. The DRP's order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal emphasized that an opportunity for a real and not illusory hearing must be provided.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. Since the quantum addition was deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty levied on that addition would not survive.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for additional evidence, finding that further verification by the AO was necessary. The matter was remanded back to the AO to adjudicate the issue afresh in light of the new evidence.