Loading ITAT cases…
414 orders · Page 9 of 9
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, a 100% disallowance was not sustainable when sales were not doubted. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is to verify the genuineness of the evidence and decide the issue of contract charges and TDS liability afresh.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee was for relinquishing her rights and claims against the firm and its related entities, not solely for retirement. The reassessment proceedings were upheld, and the addition was confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of reopening the assessment based on credible information about bogus purchase entries. However, it modified the addition, restricting it to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT notification regarding mandatory e-filing of appeals did not explicitly state its applicability based on the date of the assessment order. Following the principle of construing in favour of the assessee, the appeal should have been admitted.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances made by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) found that labour payments were supported by detailed documentation and were made to individual labourers, and that purchases were genuine and supported by confirmations and delivery challans.
The Tribunal held that the expenses related to stall installation and participation fees, amounting to Rs. 97,93,996, were allowable as they were not prohibited by the Medical Council Act. The remaining disallowed expenses were not allowed as they were considered favors to doctors.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge his onus in treating the loans as unexplained, especially when the assessee provided confirmations, PAN, and addresses, and the loans were repaid before inquiry. Consequently, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening. While acknowledging that the purchases were bogus, the Tribunal modified the disallowance from 100% to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering that sales were not doubted and the assessee dealt in the grey market.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was partly upheld by the CIT(A) but also considered arguments regarding sufficient interest-free funds. The Tribunal reversed the lower authorities' orders regarding the adjustment for interest on shareholder deposits, finding it not to be an international transaction.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was partly upheld by the CIT(A) but also considered arguments regarding sufficient interest-free funds. The Tribunal reversed the lower authorities' orders regarding the adjustment for interest on shareholder deposits, finding it not to be an international transaction.
The Tribunal upheld a previous order which had reduced the additions on account of bogus purchases to 12.5% of the purchases. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the allowability of bank interest, confirming the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 19,87,500/- should be excluded from income as there was no cessation of liability, and the Revenue could not take advantage of the assessee's mistaken offering of income. The disallowance of credit card expenses was upheld due to lack of details.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s disallowance of 20% of miscellaneous expenses due to lack of details. However, it set aside the partial disallowance of salary expenses, directing the AO to allow the entire amount.