Loading ITAT cases…
457 orders · Page 5 of 10
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to cure defects. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of expenses related to exempt income for normal computation and for book profit computation under Section 115JB. It also allowed the appeal concerning the classification of software development charges as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side, considering the business nature and VAT paid on bogus purchases. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5% on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side, considering the assessee had also paid VAT on these purchases. Therefore, it directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5%.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side, considering the nature of the business and VAT paid on bogus purchases. It directed the AO to recompute income by applying a profit rate of 5%.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause under Section 273B. This was due to the prevailing High Court decisions prior to the Bombay High Court's ruling in Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. on June 12, 2012.
The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax lacked the necessary jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in the absence of a valid order under Section 120(4)(b) and Section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the issue to the AO for de novo assessment. The AO was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination of a key witness and to furnish a copy of their statement.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the share application money received, shifting the onus to the department which failed to disprove it.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal in the absence of the assessee and without providing an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt, distinguishing it from cases where subsidies were granted for production or to minimize production costs. The Tribunal also allowed certain CSR expenditures as business expenses.
The Tribunal held that there was no basis for estimating the commission, especially since the assessee had retracted their admission due to coercion. Therefore, the addition restricted by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 36(1)(viia) does not differentiate between provisions for bad assets and standard assets, and that provisions for doubtful debts, even under different nomenclature, are allowable. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the revenue did not dispute that sales were made from the alleged bogus purchases, only a reasonable profit could be estimated. Therefore, the AO was directed to re-compute the income by applying an 8% profit rate on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal followed its own precedent for a prior assessment year. It condoned the delay in electronic filing and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side, considering the assessee had paid VAT on these purchases. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5% on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal found it fit to remand the appeal to the Assessing Officer (AO) to consider the additional evidences. The AO was directed to decide the issue on merits after considering these evidences.
The Tribunal held that the advertisement and publicity expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, following the consistent view of the Bombay High Court in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the deduction was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment for the difference in depreciation from earlier years, credited to the P&L account, could not be reduced while computing book profit under Section 115JB. Such a reduction is not permissible under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the property was purchased and held by the assessee for and on behalf of the company, as evidenced by board resolutions and accounting entries. Therefore, the payments made by the company were not in the nature of a loan or advance to the assessee, and Section 2(22)(e) was not attracted.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the amounts were received in prior years as debentures and their conversion into equity shares at a premium in the current year did not constitute fresh capital. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that retention money, equivalent to the amount of PBG, cannot be taxed merely on the basis of book entries if it has not legally accrued to the assessee. The AO erred in making additions as the CIT(A) had rightly deleted them.
The Tribunal held that the advertisement and publicity expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, following the consistent view of the Bombay High Court in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the deduction was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer had not followed any prescribed method under Section 92C(1) to compute the arm's length price for the regional office expenses. Therefore, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the issues raised by the assessee warranted fresh adjudication. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO/TPO for a de novo assessment, without commenting on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal found that the issues raised by the assessee warranted fresh adjudication. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO/TPO for a de novo assessment, without commenting on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable both on factual and legal grounds. It was noted that the assessee had not set off the disallowed loss, and the penalty notice lacked specificity regarding the charge under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee and the Departmental Representative that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect. The additions deleted by the CIT(A) were all less than ₹10 Lakhs, resulting in a tax effect below ₹20 Lakhs.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a 12.5% disallowance was deemed just. This disallowance was further restricted by reducing the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the guarantee commission adjustment to 0.5%, following its own prior decisions. For AIR reconciliation, the Tribunal's decision is not explicitly stated but implied to be resolved by further reconciliation. The Tribunal directed the AO to decide on the FTC and TDS credit issues after verifying the rectification applications filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a 12.5% disallowance was deemed just. The disallowance was further reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee on these transactions to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that for services to be considered 'fees for included services' under the treaty, the technical knowledge or technology must be 'made available' to the recipient, enabling them to apply it independently. The mere rendering of services, even if continuous, does not automatically qualify if the recipient cannot independently use the acquired knowledge.
The Tribunal restored the issues of transfer pricing adjustments related to sales and royalty to the AO/TPO for fresh examination. The disallowance of ESI contribution was allowed, directing the AO to grant the deduction as it was paid before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions regarding the application of the Profit Split Method (PSM) to advertisement revenues. It held that all inter-related international transactions, including those with non-AEs, should be included under PSM.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions regarding the application of the Profit Split Method (PSM) to advertisement revenues. It held that all inter-related international transactions, including those with non-AEs, should be included under PSM.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified. However, given the purchases were from the grey market, a disallowance of 12.5% was deemed appropriate. This disallowance was further directed to be reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee on these transactions to avoid double jeopardy.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee and the Departmental Representative that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect. The additions deleted by the CIT(A) were all less than ₹10 Lakhs, resulting in a tax effect below ₹20 Lakhs.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee and the Departmental Representative that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect. The additions deleted by the CIT(A) were all less than ₹10 Lakhs, resulting in a tax effect below ₹20 Lakhs.
The Tribunal held that while 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, a partial disallowance is warranted. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of bogus purchases, reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee.
The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, holding that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added to the book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, relying on the decision in ACIT v Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of advance billings was to be confirmed, following a previous order. However, the addition for un-reconciled transactions was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed to have sufficient own funds, it failed to provide adequate evidence like cash flow statements in earlier proceedings. However, considering the assessee's claim of filing bank statements and financial statements, the issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that a transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act had not occurred during the relevant year. Given the addendum to the JV agreement extending its tenure and the sale consideration being received in the relevant assessment year, the capitalization of interest expenditure was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. The addition should be limited to the profit element, bringing the gross profit rate on bogus purchases to the same level as genuine purchases.
The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. M/s Mohammad Haji Adam & Company, directing the AO to restrict the addition to the extent of bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO was unclear about the specific charge for levying the penalty, as the initiation was for inaccurate particulars while the imposition was for concealment. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs Samson Perinchery, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the AO was unclear about the specific charge for levying the penalty, as the initiation was for inaccurate particulars while the imposition was for concealment. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs Samson Perinchery, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.