Loading ITAT cases…
521 orders · Page 4 of 11
The Tribunal found that the TPO and DRP failed to adequately address the assessee's objections regarding the functional dissimilarity of the selected comparable companies. The matter was restored to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's reliance on professional advice as a sufficient cause. The quantum appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, and the penalty appeal was also restored for fresh adjudication after the quantum appeal is decided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and bonafide belief of the assessee. The matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the rental income derived from properties held as security during debt recovery is part of the assessee's business income. It also directed the allowance of interest and other expenses related to this business, and deleted the addition of unexplained cash credits as the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect of the disputed additions was below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's assertions were not supported by evidence. However, to provide an opportunity to the assessee, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding that the tax effect of the disputed additions was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The assessee's appeal was also dismissed as the assessee did not wish to pursue it due to small amounts.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash credits, finding that the loan creditors had deposited cash into their bank accounts just before advancing the loans to the assessee. The assessee failed to prove the source of these cash deposits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable when the assessee has not claimed any exempt income. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal found the profit rate of 12.5% confirmed by the CIT(A) to be on the higher side. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 8% on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT Circular which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT, and the tax effect in this case was below that limit.
The Tribunal found the profit rate of 12.5% confirmed by the CIT(A) to be on the higher side. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 8% on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal found that the facts at this stage could not be examined without further investigation. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh investigation, allowing the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases and present evidence.
The Tribunal found the 18% profit rate to be on the higher side, considering the nature of the business and VAT paid. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 12.5%.
The Tribunal found that the facts at this stage could not be examined without further investigation. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh investigation, allowing the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases and present evidence.
The Tribunal found that the 12.5% profit rate confirmed by the CIT(A) was on the higher side, considering the nature of the assessee's business and the VAT paid on these purchases. Therefore, the AO was directed to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 8%.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the project was completed within the stipulated period as per previous orders in the assessee's own case. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The AO's reliance on a third party's statement without confronting the assessee was not justified.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable as the company did not transfer funds to the director. It allowed depreciation at 5% and the interest on the bank loan. However, it dismissed the claim for electricity charges as not pressed and upheld the disallowance of foreign travel expenses paid in cash.
The Tribunal found some merit in the assessee's submission regarding lethargy but decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54 as the advance payment for booking a flat, supported by an allotment letter and receipts, constitutes utilization of capital gains. Demat charges incurred for clients were allowed as business expenditure, and ad-hoc disallowance was restricted to 10% for motor car and telephone expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to sustain an addition at 12.5% of the bogus purchases, finding no infirmity in the order. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions by providing confirmations, IT returns of creditors, bank statements, audited balance sheets, and TDS on interest payments. The AO failed to disprove these evidences and solely relied on third-party statements.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of remuneration under Section 40A(2)(a) was unsustainable as the assessee had consistently paid remuneration to directors for years, and there was no intention to evade tax through profit shifting, especially when the company was incurring losses. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. For the assessee's appeal, the issues of preliminary expenses and depreciation on goodwill were restored to the CIT(A) for decision in line with previous Tribunal directions. The Service Tax issue was also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision considering Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to produce relevant documents and was given an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned parties.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., stating that a mere unsustainable claim in the return does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier years. It was held that commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India, without any business connection or permanent establishment in India, is not taxable in India, and thus TDS is not required.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have remanded the matter to the AO for further inquiry regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim about the loan source. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal solely based on paper submissions without remanding.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, following the Supreme Court's decision in Palam Gas Service. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is a technical disallowance to enforce TDS compliance and is not automatically taken care of by estimation of income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalties, following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Ajitnath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. The court held that prior to the Triumph International Finance judgment, there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance with Section 269SS, thus exempting penalty under Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of profit based on sales was a possible view, and since the AO had applied his mind to the issue, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not tenable. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Max India Ltd.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were from bogus parties, the profit element embedded in the transactions should be taxed. The Tribunal reduced the profit rate from 12.5% to 8% on such purchases, considering the nature of business and VAT paid.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were from bogus parties, the profit element embedded in the transactions should be taxed. The Tribunal reduced the profit rate from 12.5% to 8% on such purchases, considering the nature of business and VAT paid.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted in a prior appeal. Consequently, the penalty levied on that addition would not survive.
The Tribunal held that the gifts received by the assessee were explained, as evidenced by the foreign inward remittance certificates and other documents provided. The Tribunal also found that the assessment under section 153A for AY 2007-08 was invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search.
The Tribunal held that the gifts received by the assessee were explained, as evidenced by the foreign inward remittance certificates and other documents provided. The Tribunal also found that the assessment under section 153A for AY 2007-08 was invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the profit on bogus purchases by estimating the profit rate at 3%, considering the assessee's own case for other assessment years where a similar estimation was made.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not automatic and that a reasonable cause for making the repayment by journal entry needed to be considered. Following previous decisions in group cases, which were upheld by the High Court, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the deletion of penalties.
The Tribunal found the 6.5% profit rate to be on the higher side and directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5%, considering the VAT element paid by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without examining the details of share applicants, which was unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of reopening was not adjudicated. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect as the corresponding income for the TDS was already offered by the company. Taxing the same income again would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not make any payment for the shares and only showed a speculative profit. However, the cover notes evidencing the transactions needed verification.
The tribunal held that since the main appeal has been disposed of, the stay petition no longer survives. Therefore, the stay application is dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claims of mistakes made by the Chartered Accountant were bald statements without substantiation. The glaring mistakes directly prejudiced the revenue, and no bona fides were established.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side for an iron and steel business, especially since VAT was paid on the purchases. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5%.
The Tribunal held that delayed pay-in charges are considered 'interest' under Section 2(28A) and thus disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is upheld. However, for interest paid to the NBFC, relief was granted based on the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) as the payee had offered the income and paid taxes.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), upholding the disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal noted that while higher disallowances were upheld in other cases, it was not appropriate to increase the disallowance as the appeal was filed by the assessee, not the Revenue.