Loading ITAT cases…
673 orders · Page 2 of 14
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had subsequently added back the claimed interest in its computation of income. Upholding the disallowance would lead to a double addition, which is not permissible. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that no notional interest could be taxed as income. It was established that the assessee had not received any interest, nor did it have a right to receive interest, as the debts were acquired at a discount and the original debtors were in default.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly decided the matter by following previous ITAT and High Court decisions. The income from the shareholder's account is an integral part of the life insurance business, and dividend income is exempt under Section 10(34).
The Tribunal held that while the revenue was justified in making estimated additions due to bogus purchases, the estimated profit rate of 12.5% was excessive. The Tribunal reduced the addition to 2% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the assessee was a trader in low-margin items and had already declared a gross profit rate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s disallowance of 12.5% on bogus purchases. It found that the assessee's counsel misled the Tribunal by claiming the purchases were for trading, when the assessee's business was manufacturing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the guarantee commission to 0.5% based on a prior ruling in the assessee's own case. It also upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance from book profits, following a Special Bench decision.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of TDS does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit of ₹ 50 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, as the original assessment had already considered and accepted the assessee's explanation that it was a development agreement, not a sale of property. The subsequent claim of inadvertent oversight was not a valid ground for reopening.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on 3G spectrum is allowable as an intangible asset, following a coordinate bench decision. It also held that TDS was not required on roaming charges as they do not constitute fees for technical services.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to respond to notices and appear with relevant documents.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's explanation regarding payments was general, the AO's notices to the suppliers were unserved and the assessee failed to produce them. Therefore, the addition for alleged bogus purchases was restricted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was valid as it was based on tangible material. However, the addition for bogus purchases was restricted to the extent of bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on disputed purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the medical reimbursement received by the assessee was explained and supported by documentary evidence, including an affidavit from the grandfather's son. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal held that MAT credit is available to the assessee who paid the MAT tax and that the High Court's order approving the demerger scheme has statutory recognition. Therefore, the MAT credit available before the appointed date should be allowed to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases cannot be made. The addition should be restricted to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. The legislative intent, as discerned from judicial decisions, supports this view.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, following a CBDT circular directing withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/-.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds challenging the reopening of assessment, despite deciding the merits in favor of the assessee. Following a precedent, the Tribunal restored both the appeal and the cross-objection to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the reopening issue.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were non-genuine, citing the modus operandi of penny stock manipulation and actions by SEBI and BSE. The appeal was dismissed as the CIT(A) had judiciously confirmed the addition.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when additions are made on an ad-hoc estimation basis. Following various High Court and Tribunal decisions, it was concluded that estimated additions do not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were non-genuine, citing the modus operandi of penny stock manipulation and actions by SEBI and BSE. The appeal was dismissed as the CIT(A) had judiciously confirmed the addition.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable as an intangible asset. However, depreciation can only be claimed if the block of assets exists. Since the assessee had written off the goodwill and it ceased to exist in its books, no depreciation could be allowed.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the appeal should be dismissed due to the low tax effect. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek recall if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were non-genuine, citing the modus operandi of penny stock manipulation and actions by SEBI and BSE. The appeal was dismissed as the CIT(A) had judiciously confirmed the addition.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance of purchases is not permissible. The addition should be restricted to the profit element embedded in such purchases.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments should only apply to transactions with associated enterprises, not the entire turnover. It also ruled that foreign exchange gains/losses arising from revenue transactions are operating in nature and should be considered as such for both the assessee and comparables.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's business transactions with its joint venture partner did not result in more than ordinary profits. The Tribunal noted that the higher prices were justified by the partner's need for high-quality, compliant intermediates for its patented product.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court ruling in CIT vs. Sarkar Builders is applicable, stating the amended definition of 'built-up area' applies only to projects approved after April 1, 2005. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on 3G spectrum is allowable as an intangible asset, following a coordinate bench decision. It also held that TDS was not required on roaming charges as they do not constitute fees for technical services.
The Tribunal, by majority view (Third Member agreeing with the Judicial Member), held that the fee under Section 234E could only be charged for delays in filing TDS statements for periods after June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had erred in rejecting the Resale Price Method (RPM) and in excluding Daga Global Chemicals Ltd. as a comparable, based on potentially misconceived facts. The matter was restored to the TPO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals by the Revenue. The Departmental Representative could not point out any exceptions to the circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. 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 since the sales were not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases was not justified. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition by bringing the gross profit rate on bogus purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) improperly set aside the matter to the AO as the power to set aside was withdrawn. For one issue, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision. For another issue, the AO was directed to fully comply with the CIT(A)'s direction to follow the ITAT order.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. It held that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal without hearing the assessee, which is against natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the 'reasons to believe' provided for reopening the assessment were indeed undated, unsigned, and lacked particulars of the AO, making them invalid. Consequently, the AO lacked valid jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty. It was held that mere making of a claim not sustainable in law, or a difference of opinion between the assessee and the revenue, does not automatically amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that Section 44AF is not applicable because the assessee failed to provide any evidence, such as purchase or sales bills, to prove he was engaged in the business of supplying tools and hardware.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT's finding that the assessee's activities, primarily providing services to ICICI Lombard under a service level agreement, were commercial and not charitable. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for registration under Section 12AA.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the appeal without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income, upholding the CIT(A)'s restriction. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit for Section 115JB purposes, as per jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases cannot be made. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the addition should be restricted to bring the gross profit rate on bogus purchases to the same rate as genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in treating unsold inventory as income from house property for AY 2014-15, as the property was stock-in-trade. The amendment to Section 23(5) w.e.f. AY 2018-19, which provides relief to developers, was noted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind by the AO. The failure to specify the exact charge in the notice, which is a requirement of natural justice, rendered the proceedings bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the issue of allowing deduction under Section 35D for share issue expenses had already been adjudicated in the assessee's own case by the ITAT. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was not justifiable and was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had examined the issues raised by the PCIT, and the PCIT himself admitted that the assessee's explanations for some issues were prima facie correct.