Loading ITAT cases…
433 orders · Page 1 of 9
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee benefited from bogus hawala purchases. However, it found the AO's addition of 12.5% to be excessive given the assessee's business profit margins. The Tribunal directed the AO to make an addition at 4% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal, following a precedent, reduced the estimated profit on bogus purchases from 12.5% to 5%. This was done considering the assessee's declared GP ratio and the applicable VAT slab.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s reduction of the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and considered the profit element embedded in such transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. It reasoned that only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income, citing a Gujarat High Court judgment.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, acknowledged that while purchases were doubtful, an addition was warranted to account for the profit element. However, the 12.5% estimation was deemed high.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of 12.5% of bogus purchases, as restricted by the CIT(A), was reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to restrict additions to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, adding the entire amount was not justified. Following the ratio of the Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchase amount, representing the profit element.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be added to income. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be added to the income. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to be in line with High Court precedents.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that additions should be restricted to bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on purchases to the same level as other genuine purchases. The Tribunal estimated the income at 5% of the alleged purchases.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on tangible material. Regarding the profit estimation, the Tribunal reduced the profit element to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had incurred significant expenditure on its core business and only a small portion could be attributed to general administration. The disallowance was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for re-quantification based on actual expenditure attributable to earning exempt income.
The Tribunal held that employee's PF contribution deposited late is allowable as per Bombay High Court ruling. For bad debts, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering evidence.
The ITAT held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circulars which set a monetary limit for filing appeals. The appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on tangible material. Regarding the profit estimation, the Tribunal reduced the profit element to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that orders giving effect to ITAT directions are appealable before the CIT(A), citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Caltex Oil Refining (India) Pvt Ltd. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, adding 100% of the amount was not justified. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing him to determine the ALV after considering the ratio laid down by the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Tip Top Typography and affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty order, stating that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases. The Tribunal also noted that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee earned no exempt income, the additional disallowance made by the AO was not sustainable. The suo-moto disallowance already offered by the assessee was sufficient, and no further disallowance was required for MAT computation.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on tangible material. Regarding the profit estimation, the Tribunal reduced the profit element to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases, as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the addition was made on estimation basis to cover the profit element.
The Tribunal held that marketing and sales promotion expenses were revenue in nature, citing various High Court decisions. It also found that the out-of-pocket expenses were supported by sufficient documentation and a detailed reply, thus allowing them.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment for AY 2010-11 was bad in law and void ab initio as it was reopened beyond four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. For other assessment years, the Tribunal directed that only a 3% profit element on non-genuine purchases should be added back.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment for AY 2010-11 was bad in law and void ab initio as it was reopened beyond four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. For other assessment years, the Tribunal directed that only a 3% profit element on non-genuine purchases should be added back.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment for AY 2010-11 was bad in law and void ab initio as it was reopened beyond four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. For other assessment years, the Tribunal directed that only a 3% profit element on non-genuine purchases should be added back.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment for AY 2010-11 was bad in law and void ab initio as it was reopened beyond four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. For other assessment years, the Tribunal directed that only a 3% profit element on non-genuine purchases should be added back.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was crucial to the depreciation claim. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination and adjudication of the issue.
The ITAT held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circulars regarding the monetary limit for filing appeals. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect.
The Tribunal directed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to include ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited and Kinetic Trust Limited in the list of comparable companies. If the assessee's margin falls within the ±5% variation after this inclusion, the entire adjustment made by the TPO should be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO's view on interest entitlement was plausible and supported by judicial precedent. The Tribunal found no delay attributable to the assessee in the proceedings leading to the refund.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's practice of valuing work-in-progress in accordance with accounting standards and consistently followed methods should be respected. It also found that temporary structures erected for project-specific purposes, to be demolished post-completion, were rightly treated as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the Tonnage Tax Scheme is a beneficial provision to be interpreted liberally. The delay in filing the application was condoned, and the CIT(A)'s reliance on a Gujarat High Court decision was also supported.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT failed to conduct minimal inquiries before concluding the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Pr.CIT also did not examine the assessee's detailed submissions and evidence, making the revision order unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that advertisement and sales promotion expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure. Following its own prior decision, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the two comparable companies should not have been rejected solely on the ground of being loss-making, as they were not consistently loss-making. The Tribunal upheld the addition to commission income as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for lower commission rates.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as two views were possible and the AO had adopted one view. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that revision under Section 263 cannot be exercised merely because another view is possible or if the AO followed a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the facts of the case were distinguishable from the Supreme Court judgment in N.K. Proteins Ltd. The Tribunal relied on various other ITAT decisions in similar diamond trading businesses where profit was estimated on bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that government companies are generally not comparable for transfer pricing analysis as their contracts may not be solely profit-driven. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of an appeal in electronic form is a procedural defect that can be cured. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous as the deduction under Section 35(2AB) is based on R&D expenditure, not income. The CIT's action under Section 263 was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence to substantiate the assessee's claim of illness preventing compliance. The penalties levied were confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had incurred significant expenditure on its core business and only a small portion could be attributed to general administration. The disallowance was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for re-quantification based on actual expenditure attributable to earning exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by proving the genuineness of the payment and its nexus with export sales. It also found that the Revenue failed to establish that the commission was chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the recipient, thus provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided prima facie evidence of the donation, including official gazette notifications, trust registration documents, and bank statements. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to prove that the donation was returned in cash, relying only on general findings from searches on other donors.