Loading ITAT cases…
396 orders · Page 8 of 8
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had made bogus purchases from a hawala party. While upholding the addition, it reduced the profit addition rate from 12.5% to 5% on the bogus purchases, considering the VAT rate and the need to tax savings from non-payment of levies.
The Third Member held that the money equivalent to the enhanced portion of a revalued asset credited to a partner's capital account does not constitute a capital asset. Therefore, its distribution to a retiring partner does not trigger capital gains under Section 45(4).
The Tribunal, following its own precedent for AY 2012-13, restricted the ad-hoc addition on sundry labor expenses to 5% of the total expenditure. The balance of the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that if sufficient interest-free funds are available, a presumption arises that investments are made from such funds, not borrowed ones. The assessee's discretion to invest its own funds should not be questioned.
The Tribunal noted that for earlier years, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of Supreme Court decisions. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue for AY 2012-13 to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.
The tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the taxability of FTS as not prosecuted. However, it held that the tax rate on FTS for a foreign company should be 10% as per Section 115A of the Act, directing the AO accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to raise additional claims before appellate authorities, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The matter was set aside to the AO to allow withdrawal of the Section 35AD claim and consider the depreciation claim.
The Third Member held that the money equivalent to the enhanced portion of a revalued asset credited to a partner's capital account does not constitute a capital asset. Therefore, its distribution to a retiring partner does not trigger capital gains under Section 45(4).
The Third Member held that the money equivalent to the enhanced portion of a revalued asset credited to a partner's capital account does not constitute a capital asset. Therefore, its distribution to a retiring partner does not trigger capital gains under Section 45(4).
The Tribunal found that the addition of 12.5% was arbitrary, especially considering the VAT rate of 4%. It directed the AO to restrict the addition to 5% of the aggregate value of purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the cash deposits with a cash summary, and the AO's doubts were not supported by adverse material. Additions cannot be made merely on the basis of probabilities or conjectures.
The Tribunal noted that for earlier years, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of Supreme Court decisions. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue for AY 2012-13 to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had primary purchase documents and payments were made through banking channels. However, due to the inability to produce suppliers, the additions were restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal permitted the Revenue to withdraw its appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the low tax effect and CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that the change in accounting policy was bonafide and in conformity with AS-9, bringing the income recognition in line with the certainty of realization. Therefore, no adverse inference or addition was warranted.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the addition of 4% on the purchases treated as bogus. This decision was based on a previous ruling in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that penalty for disallowing rent expenses was not justified as the transaction, though with a related party, was not necessarily sham. For cash deposits, the Tribunal found that a significant portion was explained by prior withdrawals, but a small part remained unexplained.
The Third Member held that the money equivalent to the enhanced portion of a revalued asset credited to a partner's capital account does not constitute a capital asset. Therefore, its distribution to a retiring partner does not trigger capital gains under Section 45(4).
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This was based on a previous identical issue for an earlier assessment year where similar directions were given.
The Tribunal held that depreciation cannot be claimed as a business expenditure on assets let out and assessed under 'Income from House Property' when statutory deductions have already been allowed. This would amount to double deduction.
The Tribunal held that while the full disallowance of purchases was not justified, a reasonable estimate was adequate to account for potential grey market purchases and embedded profit. The reduction of disallowance to 12.5% by the CIT(A) was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the Indian subsidiary did not constitute a Dependent Agent PE and that the business profits were not taxable in India. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify and allow the TDS credit.
The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment effective from April 1, 2015, Section 54 did not restrict investment in residential property to India. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction for investment made outside India.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and not dismissed it for non-prosecution. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) had not conducted a proper inquiry, particularly regarding the verification of evidence and the opportunity for cross-examination. The tribunal set aside the previous orders.
The Tribunal noted that for earlier years, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of Supreme Court decisions. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue for AY 2012-13 to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee. For AY 2013-14, due to conflicting observations regarding dividend income, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The revenue failed to present contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a revocable trust and not an AOP. The interest income is taxable in the hands of the contributors/beneficiaries and not in the hands of the trust itself.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should only be made on investments yielding exempt income. It also allowed depreciation on intangible assets, following its own precedents and Supreme Court rulings, even when the claim was not made in a revised return.
The tribunal held that the indexation benefit for capital gains should be applied based on the index of the year in which payments were actually made. The gain from the additional garage purchased in 2009 was considered short-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove delivery, the addition should account for the profit element in the purchases, not the entire amount. The CIT(A)'s restriction of the addition to 5% was considered reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be restricted to the actual expenditure incurred, as per various judicial pronouncements. The CIT(A) was correct in restricting the disallowance to the administrative expenses claimed.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide concrete evidence to substantiate the claim of bogus purchases. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld as judicious and well-reasoned.
The Tribunal held that the date of allotment letter, not the agreement date, determines the acquisition of property for capital gains calculation. Consequently, the gains were considered long-term, and the Section 54F deduction was allowed as all conditions were met.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lakhs and the issue did not fall under any exceptions mentioned in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It found that the tax effect of the appeal was below Rs. 20 Lakhs, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not record specific satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order. Furthermore, the additions were made on an estimation basis, on which penalty cannot be levied.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred in connection with the issue of FCCBs are revenue in nature and deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own cases.
The Tribunal held that the supervision charges were necessary as the assessee, as the principal contractor, was responsible for the overall project completion and needed to supervise the work done by its constituents. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is only applicable when exempt income is actually earned or receivable. Since the assessee had not earned any exempt income, no disallowance could be made.
The Tribunal held that the supervision charges were necessary as the assessee, as the principal contractor, was responsible for the overall project completion and needed to supervise the work done by its constituents. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that derivative transactions, not being backed by deliverable commodities, are not speculative transactions. Therefore, the loss incurred is eligible for set-off against profits.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred in connection with the issue of FCCBs are revenue in nature and deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own cases.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of carried forward speculative loss, holding that amended provisions restricting carry forward to four years were applicable. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding Section 14A disallowance, finding no fallacy.
The Tribunal held that Inland Haulage Charges are an integral part of the shipping business and directly connected to international transportation. Following its own previous decisions and High Court pronouncements, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order.