Loading ITAT cases…
521 orders · Page 7 of 11
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals in limine as the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and the issues did not fall under any exceptions. The revenue was granted liberty to move a miscellaneous application if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the loss on sale of shares was speculative as per Explanation to Section 73. However, it directed the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year.
The Tribunal found the disallowance excessive and unreasonable, considering the assessee's sales were not disputed and the VAT rate was 4%. The disallowance was restricted to 8% of the alleged bogus purchases to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that an order passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to an appellate order is an appealable order. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable was reversed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80IC.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148. It confirmed the addition sustained by the CIT(A) at 6.5% on bogus purchases, finding that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that while the AO had a good starting point to investigate bogus purchases, the investigation was not carried to its logical end. The Tribunal found that there was evidence of goods movement and the FAA's finding that part of the goods formed closing stock was noted. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from a similar case where cash was immediately withdrawn by the supplier.
The Tribunal held that while the AO had a good starting point for investigation based on information about bogus purchases, the investigation was not taken to its logical end. Suspicion cannot replace evidence, and the AO failed to conduct further investigation like checking suppliers' bank accounts.
The Tribunal, considering various High Court judgments on similar issues, reduced the disallowance rate from 9% to 8%. The Tribunal acknowledged that while some purchases might be from non-genuine parties, the goods themselves were likely purchased and sold.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that surcharge and education cess are part of income tax, following Supreme Court and various High Court decisions. Therefore, they should be included in the calculation of MAT credit.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that surcharge and education cess are part of income tax, following Supreme Court and various High Court decisions. Therefore, they should be included in the calculation of MAT credit.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum additions, which formed the basis of the penalty, had been remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty appeal was also sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the assessee were advances and not lease income as the conditions precedent for the commencement of the lease had not been fulfilled. The lease agreement itself clarified that such payments were advances until the approvals were obtained.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the interest expense issue, directing the AO to examine proportionate disallowance based on interest-free funds. It also allowed the appeal on leave and license fees, directing the AO to treat it as business income if consistently accepted in prior years. The appeal on foreign travel expenses was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification, noting that the discrepancy arose due to a settlement with M/s. Pooja Roadlines in the subsequent financial year. The Tribunal also restricted an ad-hoc disallowance on telephone, conveyance, and travelling expenses to 10%.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the undisclosed income was plausible, considering her age and the fact that taxes were already paid. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the shelter provided by Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer mechanically accepted the assessee's claim without proper examination, particularly regarding the sanctioned amount for expenditure under Section 35(2AB). The revisional order was affirmed in principle, but a fresh adjudication was directed.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed by the PCIT under Section 273A rejecting a waiver application is not maintainable as per Section 253(1) and Section 273A(5) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to independently apply his mind to the material received and did not establish a live link between the information and the escapement of the assessee's income. The Tribunal also noted that the reopening was based on a 'reason to suspect' rather than a 'reason to believe'.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's assessment order for AY 2011-12 mentioned the assessee had not filed a return for AY 2010-11, despite the assessee claiming to have reflected the income in that year's return. The Tribunal found the fate of the AY 2010-11 return unclear and the issue required fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not justified if the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. For other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the matter was remanded to the AO for re-examination of the computation.
The Tribunal held that sales to a 100% EOU are considered export sales as per the EXIM policy. Following its own prior decision in the assessee's case for a subsequent assessment year, the Tribunal allowed the Section 10A exemption.
The Tribunal held that amounts received for mobilization/demobilization of rigs outside Indian territorial waters are to be included in gross receipts for the purpose of Section 44BB, following Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal followed its previous decisions in the assessee's own case, which held that the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) and 40(ba) was not sustainable. The payments were considered reimbursement of expenses and not income in the hands of the recipient member.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was out of town during the hearing and an adjournment request was denied. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide concrete evidence to prove the purchases were bogus, despite the assessee submitting supporting documents. Following a coordinate bench decision in a group company's case, the Tribunal directed the disallowance of purchases to be restricted to 3%.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide concrete evidence to prove the purchases were bogus, despite the assessee submitting supporting documents. Following a coordinate bench decision in a group company's case, the Tribunal directed the disallowance of purchases to be restricted to 3%.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide concrete evidence to prove the purchases were bogus, despite the assessee submitting supporting documents. Following a coordinate bench decision in a group company's case, the Tribunal directed the disallowance of purchases to be restricted to 3%.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was less than Rs. 20 lacs. Following CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which revised monetary limits for appeals, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the grounds of appeal were covered in favor of the assessee by a previous decision in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding the assessee's explanation for not furnishing it earlier to be bonafide and beyond her control. The matter regarding the addition under Section 68 was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide concrete evidence to prove the purchases were bogus, despite the assessee submitting supporting documents. Following a coordinate bench decision in a group company's case, the Tribunal directed the disallowance of purchases to be restricted to 3%.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide concrete evidence to prove the purchases were bogus, despite the assessee submitting supporting documents. Following a coordinate bench decision in a group company's case, the Tribunal directed the disallowance of purchases to be restricted to 3%.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide concrete evidence to prove the purchases were bogus, despite the assessee submitting supporting documents. Following a coordinate bench decision in a group company's case, the Tribunal directed the disallowance of purchases to be restricted to 3%.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's claim for the lower tax rate based on the Goetze (India) Ltd. decision, as this principle does not apply to appellate authorities. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that routine maintenance contracts for office and electrical systems, without imparting technical know-how, are covered under Section 194C and not Section 194J. Therefore, the assessee was not in default for not deducting TDS under Section 194J.
The tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses for the director's son's education and business promotion expenses, deeming them personal. The disallowance under Section 14A was also confirmed as the assessee had already computed a disallowance under Rule 8D.
The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to examine the assessee's claim of retaining the property as its own asset for leasing. This claim fundamentally alters the nature of the income. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that payments for shrink-wrapped software, where only a license to use is granted and copyright is retained by the licensor, do not constitute royalty. It also noted that if the payee has already offered the income and paid tax, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) may not be warranted.
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order which had already taken a lenient view by restricting additions to 8% on bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. The addition should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases.
The Tribunal held that the penalty does not survive as the final addition was on an estimated basis. The deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 8.00 lakhs related to the loan, stating the cause of action lay with the assessee's wife and there was no evidence of receipt by the assessee. For bank deposits, the Tribunal estimated inherited money from the mother at Rs. 5.00 lakhs, explaining part of the deposit.
The Tribunal held that the expense disallowance computed by the assessee, considering only investments yielding exempt income, was acceptable. It also held that interest disallowance offered by the assessee was sufficient as the company had ample own funds to make investments.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the books of account solely based on a fall in the gross profit ratio, especially when the assessee provided evidence and reconciliations. The Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding the assessee liable for non-deduction of TDS on trade discounts and roaming charges. The assessee's reliance on the Pfizer Ltd. judgment was rejected as the facts were distinguishable.