Loading ITAT cases…
433 orders · Page 2 of 9
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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 assessment orders for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 were barred by limitation as they were passed beyond the prescribed period under Section 153(2A) of the Act. The Tribunal also found that the Transfer Pricing Officer had violated prior directions by re-applying an invalid method for determining arm's length price.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of weighted deduction as the AO had not verified the claim and the assessee had submitted supporting documents. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow credit for TDS and partly allowed the claim for death compensation.
The Tribunal held that the shared service expenses were incurred on a cost-to-cost basis without any markup. It was also noted that the group company had complied with TDS provisions on these expenses, and the allocation was within permissible limits, thus causing no loss to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the interest income received was inextricably linked to the setting up of the assessee's plant and was therefore a capital receipt, not taxable income. It should be used to reduce the cost of the project.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT could not invoke Section 263 merely because his view differed from the AO's, especially when the AO had made inquiries and accepted the assessee's submissions. The assessment order was not considered erroneous, even if potentially prejudicial to revenue, as the AO had applied his mind.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee offered the amount as income and the Assessing Officer accepted it as such, the Revenue could not simultaneously treat it as a loan for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271D. The penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of weighted deduction as the AO had not verified the claim and the assessee had submitted supporting documents. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow credit for TDS and partly allowed the claim for death compensation.
The Tribunal noted that the present appeal had become academic as a coordinate bench had already allowed the assessee's appeal on the quantum of refund. Therefore, the current appeal did not require adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeals were dismissed based on the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Both the assessee and the Revenue agreed with this submission.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases with cogent evidence, including quantitative details. The contention to restrict the addition to the gross profit rate was also rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal and the impugned order were in the name of a deceased person. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside as unsustainable in law without substitution of legal heirs.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices and represent its case properly.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not properly dealt with the assessee's submissions regarding the validity of the penalty notice and the merits of the case. Therefore, the issue of penalty on unexplained cash credit was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10AA for the reversal of export commission. Regarding the purchases, the Tribunal found that even if disallowed, it would only increase the business profits and consequently the Section 10AA deduction, making the exercise revenue neutral, thus allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had valid grounds to reopen the assessment under section 147. Since the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases, the addition of 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases was sustained.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect was below the threshold limit and no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of adjustment for import of raw materials was similar to a previous assessment year and decided to remand the issue to the TPO with directions. For export of finished goods, the Tribunal also decided to remand the issue to the TPO for factual examination of comparable prices.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of additional evidence by the Commissioner (Appeals) was mechanical and deprived the assessee of a fair opportunity. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have confronted the assessee with adverse material and provided an opportunity for cross-examination, as required by natural justice. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in allowing the deduction under Section 54 as the assessee had not utilized the capital gain for purchasing a new house before the actual date of filing the return of income, even within the extended period under Section 139(4). Therefore, the conditions of Section 54(2) were not met.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act is bad in law and a nullity if a notice under Section 143(2) was not issued or served on the assessee. Since the Revenue could not prove the issuance of such notice, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that due to significant variations in the estimated commission rate from 3.5% to 2% and finally to 1% by the ITAT, it was not a fit case for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal restored one of the grounds of appeal concerning the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Other grounds were either treated as academic or dismissed.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, including agreements and emails, as relevant to the case. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the genuineness and relevancy of these documents.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2). However, regarding the alleged bogus purchases, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 8%, while directing a reduction for profits already accounted for.
The Tribunal held that interest expenses incurred on borrowings used for interest-yielding investments should be allowed against the interest income earned. For borrowings used for investments yielding exempt income, the assessee had already made a disallowance as per Rule 8D.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO failed to discharge the onus shifted to him regarding the first addition and that the CIT(A) rightly restricted the second addition due to minor reconciliation errors in the stock register.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit specified in CBDT Circulars. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of adjustment for import of raw materials was similar to a previous assessment year and decided to remand the issue to the TPO with directions. For export of finished goods, the Tribunal also decided to remand the issue to the TPO for factual examination of comparable prices.
The Tribunal held that the appeal before the CIT(A) was limited to the variation made in the Section 154 order. Since the assessee had not appealed the original Section 14A disallowance and the revised disallowance was based on a Supreme Court ruling, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the issues were squarely covered by its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years, which followed High Court judgments. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2). However, regarding the alleged bogus purchases, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 8%, while directing a reduction for profits already accounted for.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the additions was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the reasons for reopening were not supplied to the assessee. Consequently, the additions made on account of alleged bogus purchases were deleted for AY 2009-10 and 2011-12.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on goodwill and other intangible assets was covered by its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s orders were confirmed.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable, following a CBDT circular regarding tax effect. The assessee's cross-objection, being supportive of the CIT(A)'s order, was also dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment. It also concurred with the CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, following the precedent set by the Gujarat High Court.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the appeal was below ₹.50 Lakhs. Therefore, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Both parties agreed with this submission.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on goodwill and other intangible assets was covered by its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s orders were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record objective satisfaction that the assessee incurred expenditure for earning exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO cannot be sustained.