Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 7 of 9
The Tribunal held that the expenditure is admissible as revenue expenditure. It reasoned that the transaction was confirmed by the supplier, the portal was in existence and updated, and the expense was connected to the assessee's existing and proposed business activities.
The Tribunal held that the commission disallowance was ad-hoc and without basis, as the commission was paid at a uniform rate to all agents, including the sons, and TDS was deducted. Regarding the house property, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to choose one property as self-occupied and the other as deemed let out, directing the AO to assess deemed rent accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including PAN, CIN, bank statements, and audited accounts of the investors, which demonstrated their creditworthiness. The Tribunal found the AO's doubt to be without basis.
The Tribunal held that disallowances made under Section 14A cannot be added to arrive at book profit for the purposes of Section 115JB. This decision was based on the jurisdictional Bombay High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances explained by the assessee, including the complexities arising from amalgamation and staff changes. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It found that ALET acted as a genuine intermediary, procuring the order and providing post-sale services, thus proving the genuineness of the commission paid.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ambiguous, particularly regarding the validity of reopening and the contradictory findings on merits. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order, emphasizing the need for proper documentation of the share applicants' sources of funds.
The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue were identical to those decided by a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12. Following the principle of judicial consistency, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases might be suspicious, the entire purchase price should not be disallowed. Following Gujarat High Court decisions, it directed the AO to estimate profit at 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases and add only that amount to the income.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient withdrawals to explain the diamond jewelry. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal found the AO's estimated profit of 12.5% on disputed purchases to be on the higher side for a trading business. Therefore, it directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the disputed purchases.
The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, restricting the disallowance to 4% of the bogus purchases to account for potential savings on VAT and incidental charges. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that the disallowance should be limited to estimated additional profit.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. It also ruled that disallowances under Section 14A are not to be added to book profits for the purpose of Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, not being a registered broker, could not have performed CCM. The AO failed to provide evidence that the assessee instructed or controlled the CCM, or that the transactions belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence, including photographs of the fire-damaged premises and proof of insurance claims. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verifying these documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 54(2) by not depositing the unutilized amount in the specified Capital Gain Account Scheme. Therefore, the deduction for Rs. 7,70,000 was rightly disallowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the transactions were bogus accommodation entries provided by the broker, Mukesh Chokshi, similar to other cases decided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that SEBI's confirmation of no trades distinguished this case from others relied upon by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to those decided in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years by a Coordinate Bench. Following the precedent, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing with the Assessing Officer's estimation of profit on bogus purchases and addition of unsecured loan. The assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that since the gain on sale of property was determined to be not taxable in the current assessment year, the consequential addition to the book profit under Section 115JB also needs to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the Section 80IA deduction. It agreed with the lower authorities that filing the return within the prescribed time is a mandatory condition for claiming such deductions.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and the lack of opposition from the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal granted permission to not press the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts without cogent reasoning or specific defects, and the estimated profit rate was arbitrary guesswork. The addition on account of a difference in debtor balance was also set aside due to lack of inquiry.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the property was jointly owned and the sale consideration was received by one co-owner who offered the entire capital gain to tax. It also held that two flats converted into a duplex should be treated as a single residential unit, following a previous ITAT ruling.
The Tribunal held that the fees paid for marketing and distribution services to a group company were allowable business expenditure, following a previous decision for the same assessee. Regarding research fees, the Tribunal found that the disallowance by the lower authorities was not justified, especially as the subsidiary company offered the income to tax and the revenue failed to demonstrate tax evasion.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified as it was based on a change of opinion and lacked proper reasons or tangible material. The original assessment had already considered the issues raised.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that while the assessee failed to prove the authenticity of purchases, corresponding purchases must have been made from the open market. The addition was restricted to the profit element, estimated at 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in directly adopting the rent from one lease to determine the annual value of the other without a proper comparative study of similar properties. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the payment for standard bandwidth services did not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act or the India-Singapore DTAA. As the Singapore entity had no Permanent Establishment in India, these business profits were not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the fees paid for marketing and distribution services to a group company were allowable business expenditure, following a previous decision for the same assessee. Regarding research fees, the Tribunal found that the disallowance by the lower authorities was not justified, especially as the subsidiary company offered the income to tax and the revenue failed to demonstrate tax evasion.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's claim that service charges, excluding reimbursements, were below the TDS threshold. Therefore, no TDS obligation arose under Section 194C, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a coordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal found no change in facts to warrant a different view.
The Tribunal held that it was premature to deny the set-off of losses in the current year as the four-year period for fulfilling the conditions had not expired. The conditions for revival of business are to be assessed at the end of the stipulated period.
The Tribunal held that additions for bogus purchases should be made by bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on such purchases to the same level as other genuine purchases, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. The matter was set aside to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Genesys International Corporation Ltd. and Infinite Data Systems Ltd. as comparables due to functional dissimilarity and lack of segmental data. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for working capital adjustment, directing the Assessing Officer to recalculate margins accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified as it was based on a change of opinion and lacked proper reasons or tangible material. The original assessment had already considered the issues raised.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order dated March 25, 2013, and the subsequent order under section 263 were quashed, any proceedings stemming from them, including the draft and final assessment orders, lacked legal validity. Therefore, the impugned final assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action of reopening the assessment under Section 153A was illegal, as the Settlement Commission's order under Section 245-I was conclusive. Therefore, the mistake in the AO's order was apparent and ex-facie illegal.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. The addition should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases, aligning the gross profit rate with genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the amount received on retirement from the partnership firm was not taxable as capital gains, as there was no transfer of assets. It also held that notional rental income on unsold flats held as stock-in-trade was not taxable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the Section 14A issue, agreeing that no disallowance is warranted if no exempt income is earned. Regarding tenancy rights, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, treating the expenditure as revenue in nature.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the shareholders. The Tribunal also noted that the reassessment was quashed due to issues with the service of notice.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. The addition should be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same level as other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, which was prior to April 1, 2015, the amendment requiring investment 'in India' was not applicable. It also affirmed that indexation should be calculated from the year the previous owner acquired the asset, following jurisdictional High Court precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment. However, it found that the profit element should be considered at 3% of the purchases, considering the industry margin and the assessee's already declared gross profit.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment. However, it modified the addition by directing the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element at 3% of the purchases, considering the assessee's already declared gross profit margin and industry norms.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment. However, it found that the profit element should be considered at 3% of the purchases, considering the industry margin and the assessee's already declared gross profit.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment. However, it found that the profit element should be considered at 3% of the purchases, considering the industry margin and the assessee's already declared gross profit.
The Tribunal agreed that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases. However, it found no cogent reason for the AO's estimation of profit at 12.5% and directed the AO to restrict the addition to the profit element consistent with the assessee's overall Gross Profit (GP) rate.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not genuine, the disallowance should be restricted to the profit element embedded in such purchases, aligning the Gross Profit (GP) rate with that of genuine purchases.