Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 6 of 9
The Tribunal held that the date of allotment letter is relevant for computing the holding period for capital gains, not the date of the agreement for sale or registration. However, it also noted that the property is not conveyed by delivery of possession but by a registered deed, and the transfer takes place on the date of execution of the registered document.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that TDS was not deductible as the payments were made to foreign parties for services rendered outside India, and these parties did not have a Permanent Establishment in India. Therefore, the income was not chargeable to tax in India.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that a profit rate of 5% was reasonable, considering the nature of the business and the fact that VAT was paid on these purchases. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal restored the issue of addition of accrued interest on loans and investments back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was based on a previous Tribunal order for AY 2002-03 where the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking and reasoned order.
The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee. The Tribunal agreed to restore the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that an addition cannot be sustained solely on a statement recorded during a survey without any other tangible evidence or corroborative material found during the survey or assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that a profit rate of 5% was reasonable, considering the nature of the business and the fact that VAT was paid on these purchases. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings. While acknowledging the genuineness of purchases could not be fully substantiated, the Tribunal reduced the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to 5% of the purchase amount, considering the nature of the business and lower profit margins.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of legal and professional expenses was incorrect as the assessee was carrying on business and had substantiated the expenses. The addition on account of sundry creditors was also deleted as there was no remission or cessation of liability, and the amounts were settled in subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that, in the interest of natural justice, the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate their case, failing which the CIT(A) could decide based on available material.
The Tribunal held that there is no prohibition against converting investments into stock-in-trade, provided it is done within the framework of law. The conversion was not found to be sham or a subterfuge, and the assessee's subsequent consistent treatment of such transactions as business supported the decision.
The Tribunal held that a technical flaw in filing the appeal should not be a hurdle to justice. Since the CIT(A) did not decide the matter on merits, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal restricted the addition for bogus purchases to 12.5% of the alleged amount, considering the profit element. The addition for unexplained cash credit from the assessee's wife was deleted due to supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of making purchases in bona-fide belief and good faith to be plausible. The Tribunal noted that the suppliers used to visit the assessee's shop and their TIN was active at the time of purchase.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the Section 40A(3) disallowance, finding that payments were made by cheque, not cash. For the ad-hoc addition, the Tribunal restricted it to 5% of the aggregate expenditure, deleting the balance.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that a profit rate of 5% was reasonable, considering the nature of the business and the fact that VAT was paid on these purchases. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the mobilization advance was a capital receipt and not income. Therefore, TDS deducted on this advance should be allowed as credit in the year of deduction itself, as per various precedents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that mobilization advance is recoverable and not income. It was noted that the advance was secured by a bank guarantee and was to be recovered in installments from future bills, aligning with High Court and Tribunal precedents.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was based was subsequently deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had accounted for commission as a reduction in purchase cost (trade discount) and provided reconciliation. Therefore, the addition made solely on the basis of Form 26AS was erroneous.
The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and restored the issues for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present his case with proper documentary evidence, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed on a non-existent company, which has merged with another entity, is invalid and void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element embedded in the non-genuine purchases, estimated at 12.5%. The Tribunal reasoned that since sales turnover was not disputed, the assessee must have procured goods from elsewhere, and only the profit from such transactions should be taxed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on previous ITAT rulings and High Court judgments. It found that disallowances under Section 14A were not warranted as no exempt income was earned, and interest expenditure was allowable due to commercial expediency and its inextricable link to interest income.
The Tribunal held that expenses and depreciation related to the discontinued Kavesar unit, except for insurance, were allowable business expenses. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to guarantee commission, setting an arm's length price at 0.5% p.a.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors. The AO failed to disprove the assessee's stand despite the evidence submitted and the appearance of creditors before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was void and bad in law because the AO failed to specify the limb for penalty in the notice, violating the principles of natural justice. The assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to respond to the specific charge.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors. The AO failed to disprove the assessee's stand despite the evidence submitted and the appearance of creditors before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dismissed the appeal solely on the technical ground of manual filing when it was within the limitation period. An opportunity should have been given to file it electronically.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance, noting that the AO had not pointed out any incorrectness in the assessee's books of account or supporting evidence, and had failed to consider the corresponding increase in business turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s rectification order for AY 2010-11 was bad in law as it introduced a new issue without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The appeal for AY 2011-12 was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that expenses and depreciation related to the discontinued Kavesar unit, except for insurance, were allowable business expenses. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to guarantee commission, setting an arm's length price at 0.5% p.a.
The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s method of proportionate disallowance. Finding no direct nexus between expenses and exempt income, the Tribunal held that a reasonable disallowance of 10% of the claimed expenses (Rs. 6,73,589/-) was appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived during the search proceedings. Therefore, the penalty should be levied at 10% and not 30%.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings, and the assessee's claim of deduction was a bona fide mistake. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on fixed deposits kept as margin money for business purposes constitutes business income and is eligible for deduction under Section 10AA. The earlier Tribunal decision for the same assessment year was found to be factually identical.
The Tribunal held that the labour charges of Rs. 17,27,075/- were to be deleted as they were verified. For the remaining unverified charges to Raj Products and J.K. Engineering, a lump sum disallowance of 30% was deemed reasonable, directing the AO to add Rs. 1,88,188/- to the income.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not maintainable when the assessment is made under Section 115JB and tax is paid on that basis, as the concealment under the normal procedure becomes irrelevant and does not lead to tax evasion. The CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the credit co-operative society was distinct from a co-operative bank and not hit by the exclusion in Section 80P(4). The Tribunal followed its own coordinate bench's decision on identical grounds.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) would not be applicable if the payee has furnished their return of income, accounted for the sum, and paid the tax due, as per the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The matter was restored to the AO for verification of these conditions.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent negligence in attending hearings and concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's case fell under the exceptional clause of Section 43(5)(c), thus the transactions were not speculative. The Tribunal agreed that Section 73's deeming provisions were not applicable and that the CIT(A)'s reasoning was sound.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing identical factual matrix in previous appeals. The CIT(A) was directed to summon complete case records and adjudicate the validity of additions.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the gross receipts by deducting amounts already taxed and refunds. Profits are to be estimated at 12% for completed projects and on a percentage completion basis for incomplete ones, restricted to the work completed as per the assessee's past practice.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on deposits made as security for availing credit facilities for the business is inextricably linked to the business and should be treated as business income. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IB.
The Tribunal held that the rental income should be treated as business income, aligning with the assessee's consistent stand and previous orders. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to conclusively prove delivery, the entire purchase amount could not be added as income. Instead, the addition was restricted to the profit element embedded in the transactions, specifically 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Revenue's representative agreed that the appeal was not maintainable.
The tribunal allowed the ground regarding interest disallowance by following a coordinate bench's decision. For Section 14A, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to recompute the disallowance but also directed the AO to consider the assessee's contention of not earning exempt income.
The Tribunal held that procedural defects should not deny substantial justice to a litigant. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the technical ground of non-e-filing, especially when the appeal was filed within the prescribed time and in paper form.