Loading ITAT cases…
673 orders · Page 13 of 14
The Tribunal held that while 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, a 12.5% disallowance on such purchases, reduced by the gross profit rate already declared, would meet the ends of justice. Additionally, ad-hoc disallowances on expenses based on cryptic remarks were set aside.
The Tribunal held that while 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, a 12.5% disallowance on such purchases, reduced by the gross profit rate already declared, would meet the ends of justice. Additionally, ad-hoc disallowances on expenses based on cryptic remarks were set aside.
The Tribunal held that while 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, a 12.5% disallowance on such purchases, reduced by the gross profit rate already declared, would meet the ends of justice. Additionally, ad-hoc disallowances on expenses based on cryptic remarks were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT's circular. The assessee's cross-objection was not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) because it followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. This decision allowed for assessing profits at 10% on bogus purchases.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, which is not justifiable. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the immigration fines were incurred in the ordinary course of business and were not due to any illegal activity by the assessee. Therefore, these fines are allowable as business expenditure.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee, which was purely legal. However, as the main issue was sub judice before the High Court, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to decide based on the High Court's final outcome.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly quashed the revisionary order under Section 263, making the consequent assessment order infructuous. The Bombay High Court judgment was distinguished as it pertained to a different factual matrix where land use conversion and specific construction permissions were not obtained.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the adjustment for 'Assistance in Brand Building', directing the deletion of the adjustment. For other assessment years, the Tribunal applied its earlier decisions on similar issues.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, prior to its amendment effective from 01.06.2015, did not empower the AO to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, for TDS statements filed before this date, the levy of such fees was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the exemption for income from the pension fund and dividend income should be allowed, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. The Tribunal found no distinguishing facts or contrary legal arguments presented by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that for Section 41(1) to apply, there must be a clear remission or cessation of liability, which was not proven. It also held that interest on delayed service tax payment is compensatory, not penal, and thus deductible under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that UPS is an integral part of a computer system and depreciation at 60% is allowable. The facts were not distinguishable from the cited High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable on the coal cost freight issue as the claim was bonafide and based on the statutory auditors' report. The AO had not properly investigated the claim, and it was not discussed in the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum of income was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment by a previous ITAT order, the penalty proceedings had no basis. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that for a charitable trust claiming exemption under Section 11, only actual rent received and actual expenses incurred are to be considered. Deemed or notional rent cannot be assessed as income. The AO's action was not justifiable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee firm was not in existence during the period when the alleged purchases were shown to have been made from M/s Vitrag. Therefore, the grounds of appeal were allowed, and the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not claim the deduction in the return of income and the addition was deleted by the Tribunal, there was no basis for imposing a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for a prior assessment year was restored to the AO for verification. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for necessary verification of the donations.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee's claim of having sufficient interest-free funds was not supported by its balance sheet, which showed reliance on borrowed funds. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's argument for restricting disallowance based on the proportion of exempt income to total income.
The Tribunal held that the predominant object of the assessee is general public utility, and income from incidental activities like food and liquor sales does not disqualify it from exemption. The club's activities were found to be charitable in nature.
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Vishal Information Technologies Ltd. and Cepha Imaging Pvt. Ltd. as comparables due to functional dissimilarity. With these exclusions, the assessee's margin fell within the acceptable range, rendering further adjustments unnecessary.
The Tribunal held that the entire seized document should be considered, and the CIT(A) had inadvertently omitted to consider a part of the seized diary. The Tribunal found that the balance investment of Rs. 1,88,04,000/- was also sourced from cash received back against payments made towards 'bogus purchases'.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, it found that while the AO accepted sales against consumption, a disallowance was warranted to avoid revenue leakage. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on tenancy rights, as it is not considered a depreciable asset. However, it allowed the deduction for payments made to legal heirs of deceased partners towards goodwill, following its consistent view.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for appeals. Since the Revenue did not demonstrate any exceptions to the circular, the appeal was not pressed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely for not being filed in electronic mode. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the grounds on merits.
The Tribunal held that the jewellery in question was within the permissible limits stipulated by CBDT circulars and relied on High Court decisions. Therefore, no addition as unexplained jewellery was justifiable.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decisions in the assessee's own case, deleted the disallowance made by the lower authorities. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claim for deduction in respect of amortization of premium on leasehold land.
The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, following its own previous decisions where similar issues were remanded. The assessee was to be given an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to specify and substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, as required by Section 271AAA(2). A general statement about dealing in land was not sufficient to meet the statutory requirement.
The Tribunal held that the AO's implicit view that no TDS was required on demurrage charges was in line with the Bombay High Court's Full Bench ruling. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside.
The Tribunal held that brought forward business losses can be set off against current business income even if the business was discontinued in the preceding year, as per Section 72(1) of the Income Tax Act. It further held that unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against income from any head, not just business income, following amended provisions of Section 32(2) and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decisions in the assessee's own case, deleted the disallowance made by the lower authorities. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claim for deduction in respect of amortization of premium on leasehold land.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the practical difficulties inherent in the diamond trade. The TPO's approach was considered flawed for not exploring alternative methods to determine the arm's length price.
The Tribunal held that compliance with AS-11 is mandatory and the exchange fluctuation loss should be treated as revenue expenditure, especially since the revenue had accepted similar treatment in earlier years. The loss was found to have no bearing on the cost of fixed assets.
The Tribunal agreed that the purchases from the specific party were not genuine but held that the addition should be restricted to the profit element. The profit element was to be calculated by bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on bogus purchases to the same level as genuine purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the assessee's own case. The Court had held that contributions from members are not taxable merely because excess income is invested in mutual funds, provided income from such investments is offered to tax.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the transaction was a sale deed and not a gift, as no gift deed was produced. The assessee's attempt to claim the difference as a gift to avoid Section 50C was considered an afterthought, especially since the capital gains were not voluntarily disclosed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Both parties agreed that the tax effect involved was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.
The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly allowed the revised claim, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision, as the Assessing Officer had not disputed the merit of the claim. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner's order.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified. It followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the assessee's own case which held that delayed payment of employee's contribution to provident fund cannot be disallowed in view of the amendment to Section 43B.
The Tribunal noted that the AO considered profit from NSE but failed to set off the loss from commodity transactions reported by the Multi Commodity Exchange. The matter was restored to the AO to allow the set-off of losses against profits.
The Tribunal held that since the sales turnover was not disputed, only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be added to the income. They affirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that Thirdware Solutions Ltd. and Cigniti Technologies Ltd. were not valid comparables due to functional differences and engagement in software product sales or testing services, respectively. The issue regarding Aspire Systems India Pvt. Ltd. was remitted back to the TPO for re-examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following Supreme Court precedents that expenses excluded from export turnover should also be excluded from total turnover. It also affirmed that Section 10AA deduction is to be given before setting off losses.