Loading ITAT cases…
607 orders · Page 9 of 13
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing documentary evidence for the loan, including confirmations and repayment details. The AO relied on third-party information without independent inquiry, and there was no finding that the particulars furnished by the assessee were incorrect or erroneous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's judicial custody as a reasonable cause. The case was set aside to the AO for fresh examination with additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the entire purchases cannot be added as bogus simply because the parties were not produced. It restricted the disallowance to 10% of the alleged purchases.
The Tribunal held that the contracts were primarily works contracts and did not involve the provision of technical services as contemplated under Section 194J. They also found that the arrangements for transporting staff did not constitute hiring of vehicles under Section 194-I. Therefore, the deduction of tax under Section 194C was appropriate.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This was based on the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit for appeals specified by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not adequately consider the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee and relied on the statement of Mukesh Choksi without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the loss due to embezzlement by employees is a business loss deductible under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that once the books of accounts are rejected and income is estimated, no separate addition can be made under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure. The profit embedded in the disputed transactions is what can be taxed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had made substantial cash withdrawals from the same bank prior to the deposits in question. Therefore, the deposits were considered to be explained by these earlier withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the contracts were primarily works contracts and did not involve the provision of technical services as contemplated under Section 194J. They also found that the arrangements for transporting staff did not constitute hiring of vehicles under Section 194-I. Therefore, the deduction of tax under Section 194C was appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the DEPB license was genuine as it was issued by the Government of India and used by the assessee for imports. The fact that the dealer acted as a middleman and the license was purchased at a discount did not invalidate its genuineness.
The Tribunal held that claiming an expenditure as revenue which is later held to be capital does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The claim was considered bonafide, and all details were furnished. Furthermore, the penalty was levied for both 'concealment' and 'inaccurate particulars' when proceedings were initiated only for the latter, which is impermissible.
The Tribunal found that the issue regarding Section 11(2) was restored to the AO for fresh examination, and the CCIT's view on surplus generation was not in line with CBDT circulars. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CCIT for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that professional fees related to court matters and property setup should be examined by the AO for capitalization or addition to project cost. Stamp duty and registration charges incurred as an incentive for sales were held to be revenue expenditure. Interest on delayed payments to creditors was also allowed as a business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that notional interest on debts, where recovery is doubtful and the original company was declared a sick industrial unit, cannot be taxed as accrued income. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow only a 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases, citing that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance is not justified. The Tribunal acknowledged that purchases from the grey market can lead to savings for the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the jurisdictional High Court's decision is binding. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the carry forward of the deficit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the jurisdictional High Court's decisions were binding. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reliance on these precedents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the jurisdictional High Court's decisions were binding. The assessee was allowed to claim depreciation and carry forward the deficit as per these decisions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's judgments. Depreciation is allowable as an application of income for trusts, and deficits can be carried forward and adjusted against subsequent income.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's GP rate and earlier years, restricted the addition on bogus purchases to 6% of the purchase value. This modified the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 8%.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders, dismissing the assessee's appeals. The assessee's failure to appear or provide evidence led to the dismissal of all grounds raised.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the income from letting of premises with services rendered should be assessed as business income. The Cross Objection by the assessee regarding reopening of assessment became infructuous.
The Tribunal modified the order, directing the AO to restrict the addition to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the profit rate declared by the assessee and judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that since there was a direct link between borrowed funds and the fixed deposits earning interest, the interest expenditure should be set off against the interest income. Both are revenue in nature, justifying netting.
The Tribunal held that for bogus purchases, a reasonable disallowance of 12.5% of the purchases as gross profit would be fair. The claim for TDS on VAT was allowed in the year the assessee became aware of the deduction. The disallowance for late payment of employee PF contribution was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for bogus purchases, a reasonable disallowance of 12.5% of the purchases as gross profit would be fair. The claim for TDS on VAT was allowed in the year the assessee became aware of the deduction. The disallowance for late payment of employee PF contribution was upheld.
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 held that additions under Section 68 for cash deposits were invalid as the bank accounts were not found during the search. The addition under Section 69C for flat investment was partly confirmed, reducing it from Rs. 56 lacs to Rs. 36 lacs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases from suspect dealers, finding it a fair view. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict disallowance of sales promotion expenses to 10%.
The Tribunal held that only purchases from unregistered dealers listed as hawala dealers should be considered for addition. The profit embedded in these purchases was estimated at 12.5%, confirming the CIT(A)'s approach for that portion.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed amount was Rs. 8,19,788/-, which was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the Revenue was barred from filing the appeal.