Loading ITAT cases…
673 orders · Page 11 of 14
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned during the year. For the assessment year where exempt income was earned, the disallowance cannot exceed the amount of exempt income.
The Tribunal noted that the demand under Section 201(1) was deleted, and the consequential interest under Section 201(1A) was retained and paid by the assessee. The assessee no longer wished to pursue the appeal.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned during the year. For the assessment year where exempt income was earned, the disallowance cannot exceed the amount of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the purchases, the addition should only be for the profit element embedded in the transactions, not the full amount. The CIT(A)'s action of restricting the addition to the gross profit margin was deemed fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 3% of the aggregate value of bogus purchases. It agreed that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of purchases from the dummy concerns.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on High Court and ITAT precedents that shares held as stock-in-trade should be excluded for Rule 8D calculations. The restriction of disallowance was deemed correct.
The Tribunal found that while the AO did not confront the assessee with adverse material, the assessee also failed to substantiate the genuineness of purchases with cogent evidence like delivery receipts. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rejection of a claim does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in the absence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was deleted as the assessee had not concealed any particulars or furnished inaccurate information.
The Tribunal held that since the recipients had already offered the income in their returns and paid taxes, and it was a case of short deduction rather than non-deduction, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee-in-default.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases, finding no new facts or contrary judgments to deviate from the lower appellate authority's findings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the civil work expenses and the contractor. It also noted that since no exempt income was earned, the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. It reasoned that since the AO did not reject the assessee's sales, the entire purchase amount could not be added back, as there cannot be sales without purchases. The profit element embedded in the purchases was considered the appropriate addition.
The Tribunal held that the non-disclosure was due to an oversight or mistake, possibly on the advice of the CA, and not due to any intention to defraud the department. The penalty was therefore not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that while the genuineness of purchases was doubtful due to unserved summons to suppliers, a full disallowance was not justified as sales were not disputed and payments were through banking channels. The addition should account for the profit element.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not examined whether the claim for deduction under Section 80IB was debatable. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s restriction of additions to 5.18% of bogus purchases was unreasonable. It directed the AO to restrict additions to 12.5% of the bogus purchases to account for profit elements.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and that its agent was an independent agent. Therefore, no part of its revenue was attributable to India, and it was not liable to pay tax in India.
The Tribunal confirmed the lower authorities' orders, treating the mobile tower rental income as income from 'Other Sources' and disallowing interest expenses. The assessee failed to provide substantiation or evidence for its contentions.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not from the stated hawala dealers, they were likely from unidentified parties in the open market. Since the corresponding sales were not doubted, the addition was restricted to the profit element, which the assessee had already disclosed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment years were unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search relating to the additions, the additions made under section 153A were liable to be deleted. The decision of the jurisdictional High Court was followed.
The Tribunal held that the contracts were divisible, with offshore supplies on CIF/CIP basis. Since the title to the goods passed at the port of loading outside India, the income from these supplies is not taxable in India.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, all grounds of appeal were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, with a direction to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that adjustments made to profits in interim years for ongoing projects are tax neutral as they would be offset in the final profit declared upon project completion. For penalty, the Tribunal agreed that ad-hoc additions based on estimates without independent material do not warrant penalty.
The Tribunal found that while the lower authorities confirmed additions based on unverified purchases, the estimation of 25% of total sales was unreasonable. Relying on various High Court judgments and considering the profit element embedded in grey market purchases, the Tribunal restricted the additions.
The Tribunal observed that a significant portion of the gratuity related to past services rendered to the erstwhile proprietary concern, which is considered a capital expenditure. The matter was restored to the AO for further adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that units/flats for which possession has been given are to be considered sold, and profit arising therefrom is taxable in the year of possession. For remaining units, the AO's estimation of income was incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere as the issue was covered against the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in their own case.
The Tribunal followed previous decisions of the Mumbai ITAT, which allowed deduction for keyman insurance policy premiums. Therefore, the disallowance of the provision for insurance expenses was not justified.
The Tribunal held that since the commission payment was for services rendered outside India and the non-resident agent had no permanent establishment in India, the income was not chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, no tax was required to be deducted at source under Section 195.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee repeatedly sought adjournments without showing progress in obtaining records. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that Section 14A cannot be invoked unless there is receipt of exempt income. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the disallowance based on this settled legal principle and the absence of evidence of borrowed funds being used for investments.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that Section 14A is inapplicable when no expenditure related to exempt income is claimed in the profit and loss account. It was also noted that expenses were already adjusted against WIP to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own earlier decisions for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, where the CIT(A)'s decision in favour of the assessee was upheld. Therefore, the revenue's ground of appeal was rejected.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases from the alleged bogus suppliers. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of these purchases.
The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee for accessing research products constitute royalty income taxable in India, following its own previous decisions and High Court pronouncements. However, it ruled that interest under Section 234B was wrongly levied as the assessee, being a non-resident, was not liable for advance tax.
The Tribunal held that interest on margin money and security deposits, as well as recovery of damages, were not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IAB. However, other items like sale of scrap and discount on electricity charges were considered incidental business income but still not eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee conceded to the taxability of income as royalty, the Revenue's appeals on this ground were allowed. However, interest under Section 234B was held to be not chargeable, following a jurisdictional High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should be computed with reference to investments yielding exempt income during the year, aligning with a Special Bench decision. For Section 115JB, the Tribunal found that the disallowance made by the assessee and enhanced by the CIT(A) was sufficient, and the AO's method based on Rule 8D was not applicable.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80IB(8A) by respectfully following the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had previously ruled in favor of the assessee on the same issue. Consequently, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had only adjudicated the validity of reopening and not the merits of the additions. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issues on merits back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision, agreeing that there was no agreement between the assessee and its AEs for sharing Advertising and Market Research (AMP) expenses. Following previous decisions of a co-ordinate bench, the Tribunal ruled that the transaction was not an international transaction.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The AO had made a conscious decision, taking a possible view after considering the assessee's reply and relying on a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal found that while the purchases were bogus, the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient justification for reducing the addition to 1%. Following its own precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to make an addition of 6% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) after hearing the Departmental Representative, as the assessee did not appear. The Tribunal found no material to contradict the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of partner's remuneration was not justified, following a previous year's decision. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s sustained addition of 12.5% of the unproved purchases, considering the facts and circumstances.