Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 3 of 9
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to fully substantiate the purchases, the revenue also failed to disprove the authenticity of the purchase documents presented. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be validly imposed.
The Tribunal reduced the estimated additions for bogus purchases to 7% of the alleged amount, considering the nature of the business and previous year's orders. The addition was deemed to be on the higher side.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the disallowance of leave encashment based on a previous decision in the assessee's own case regarding Section 43B(f). The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal, allowing depreciation on computer software as it was a capital expenditure and Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the joint venture agreement. The assessee argued that Akshata Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. performed its role in negotiating with slum dwellers, justifying the payment. The Tribunal noted that the AO had issued notices under section 133(6) to Akshata Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. and that the assessee had provided evidence.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under section 14A cannot be made in section 153A proceedings without incriminating material. For other years, it was held that disallowances should be restricted to investments that actually yielded exempt income.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's approach of relying on a previous year's order without considering the Section 12A registration was erroneous. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee's activities were predominantly event management, with significant sponsorship income. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of loans and advances written off was not justified as the assessee failed to provide clear evidence for their nature and irrecoverability. However, the disallowance of bandwidth charges due to non-deduction of TDS was deleted, following the principle that an assessee cannot be penalized for non-compliance with a law introduced retrospectively.
The Tribunal reduced the estimated additions for bogus purchases to 7% of the alleged amount, considering the nature of the business and previous year's orders. The addition was deemed to be on the higher side.
The Tribunal restored the issue of income from house property and Section 14A disallowance to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, following its own prior decisions. The issue of water charges was also restored to the AO to consider it as a deduction under Section 37.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient primary evidence for the purchases, and the AO had not produced any material to controvert these evidences. Therefore, the penalty was not justifiable.
The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable under Section 271(1)(c) on ad-hoc or estimated additions. Therefore, the penalty levied on the estimated addition for bogus purchases was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of assessment. However, it found the estimated profit of 12.5% on non-genuine purchases to be excessive and reduced it to 5%.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to M/s. Sharpmind Marketing Pvt. Ltd., including additional incentives, were in the nature of principal-agent relationship and thus liable for TDS. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 revised monetary limits for appeals. As the tax effect was below the revised limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the revised return was validly filed and that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when no exempt income has been earned. The addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the assessment is based on book profit under Section 115JB, and the concealment under normal provisions did not lead to tax evasion. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment and the addition of estimated profit on bogus purchases. The assessee's failure to link purchases with sales and produce evidence for the suppliers was a key factor.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in their factual assessment. It directed the AO to consider the property's value as of August 13, 1984, for computing long-term capital gains and remanded the matter for determination of fair market value.
The Tribunal held that Motilal Oswal Private Equity Advisors Pvt. Ltd. was not a comparable as it engaged in portfolio management, unlike the assessee which only provided investment advice. However, IDC (India) Limited and ICRA Online Ltd. were held to be good comparables.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not examined the assessee's contentions regarding the exclusion of revaluation reserves and amounts already assessed as deemed dividend. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of all these issues.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's audited books of accounts were accepted by the AO without any defects, the addition on account of negative cash balance was unjustified. The Tribunal found no negative cash balance in the detailed cash book provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue of undervaluation of stock to the AO for fresh examination, allowing the assessee to prove the justification for lower valuation of defective stock. The claim for deduction on subsidy receipts was rejected, while the issue of interest on fixed deposits was also restored to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular mandates that departmental appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since this appeal fell within that limit and was not covered by exceptions, it was not maintainable.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was based on the assessee's claim of inadvertent calculation errors in Form 10 and the Tribunal's previous decision in an identical case for a different assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the cash transactions between the director and the assessee company, maintained in a current account, do not constitute a loan or deposit for the purposes of Section 269SS. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271D was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the evidence submitted by the assessee regarding commission payments and depreciation. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that adding 100% of the purchases to the assessee's income is not justified. Instead, only the profit element embedded in the alleged bogus purchases should be brought to tax.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was based was deleted by the ITAT, the penalty order does not survive. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the parties were not traceable and the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions, the addition was justified. However, considering the assessee is a trader, the addition was sustained at 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to his file for making due inquiry. The CIT(A) was directed to controvert the AO's findings before deciding the issue of the nature of the loss incurred by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to estimate the profit at 12.5% on the purported bogus purchases. The assessee's inability to establish the genuineness of the transactions and produce the parties led to this estimation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided further evidence regarding the companies being NBFCs and an amalgamation. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the issue is identical to a previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11, where similar interest rates were allowed. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that income from amenities provided to tenants is assessable under the head 'income from house property'. This was based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that Rule 11UA, as in force for the assessment year 2013-14, mandated valuation based on book value and did not require replacement with fair value of quoted shares. Therefore, the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to estimate the profit at 12.5% on the purported bogus purchases. The assessee's inability to establish the genuineness of the transactions and produce the parties led to this estimation.
The Tribunal held that bad debts written off are allowable as a deduction, following its own previous orders. For Section 14A disallowances, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a definite finding, except for one year where a 5% disallowance of dividend income was directed.
The Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs. 36 lakhs, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted by a previous Tribunal order. Therefore, the penalty order had no basis and was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal restored both issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. This was based on a coordinate bench's decision in earlier years for the business expenses and the need for the AO to examine documents related to the capital loss.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bona fide. The appeal was then remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the concession by the Revenue's representative that the tax effect was below the threshold limit for filing appeals to the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and restrict indirect expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). It also sustained the deletion of disallowance on motor car depreciation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and restrict indirect expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). It also sustained the deletion of disallowance on motor car depreciation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeal, citing a liberal approach for substantial justice. It upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to capitalize expenses incurred before business commencement, allowing for future depreciation.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 directs that departmental appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. As the present appeal did not fall under any exceptions and its tax effect was below the limit, it was not maintainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, which mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of pending appeals below a certain tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not pressed due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeals, it directed that additions on account of alleged non-genuine purchases be restricted to a specific amount, considering the profit element and actual usage of materials.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. For the assessee's appeals, it directed that bogus purchases should only be disallowed in the year they are claimed as expenses. Disallowances for personal expenses were restricted, and the issue of interest expense utilization was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the right to collect toll is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the IT Act. It also held that interest income earned on business receipts deposited in fixed deposits should be treated as business income.