Loading ITAT cases…
433 orders · Page 6 of 9
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had applied his mind and considered the facts, making the assessment order not erroneous. The Tribunal also found that Section 68 was not applicable as there were no cash credits, and Section 69C was not applicable for disallowance of expenses.
The Tribunal followed its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for preceding years and directed the AO to allow depreciation on the non-compete fees.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should only examine the genuineness of the trust's objectives at the stage of granting registration, not the commencement or manner of its activities. The CIT(E)'s objections were considered premature.
The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition for assets acquired prior to 01/04/1981 should be determined based on fair market value as on that date, indexed appropriately. Since this benefit was not given to the assessee, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for recomputation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's investments were not in violation of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) as the shares were received as bonus shares prior to 1973. The Tribunal also allowed the carry forward of excess charitable expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's investments were not in violation of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) as the shares were received as bonus shares prior to 1973. The Tribunal also allowed the carry forward of excess charitable expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54EC while calculating book profit under Section 115JB, following the Madras High Court's decision in CIT Vs Metal & Chromium Plater (P.) Ltd.
The assessee accepted the terms of the agreement and wished to withdraw the appeal. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Since the Revenue did not dispute this fact, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This was based on the CBDT's circular regarding monetary limits for appeals and the agreed position between the parties on the tax effect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it reasonable and justified. They noted that the Revenue had not doubted the assessee's sales and that purchases are necessary for sales.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) took a pedantic and hyper-technical view in not condoning the 25-day delay. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that acceptance of explanations for delay should be the rule, not an exception, especially when stakes are high.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on surmise and conjecture without cogent material, as the AO did not conduct any independent inquiry or find any default in the books of account. The CIT(A) also failed to apply their mind and merely repeated the AO's order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed the identity of the HUFs and the transactions were through banking channels. The AO did not conduct any independent inquiry from the creditors. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that while purchases from grey markets may involve savings for the assessee, a 100% disallowance is not appropriate when sales are not doubted. The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing that the disallowance be restricted to 12.5% of bogus purchases, reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal held that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure in tax laws and that high quantum of expenditure does not change its revenue nature. It also ruled that litigation expenses related to share transfer do not necessarily increase the value of shares and should not be capitalized.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, acknowledging the profit element embedded in such transactions. The assessee's failure to substantiate purchases was noted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) took a pedantic and hyper-technical view in not condoning the 25-day delay. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that acceptance of explanations for delay should be the rule, not an exception, especially when stakes are high.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision, restricted the addition to 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. This was based on the principle that if sales are accepted and payments are made through banks, purchases cannot be rejected solely on the basis of information from tax authorities.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to a change in the assessee's address. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after granting a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to substantiate purchases, the addition should account for the profit element embedded in these transactions. Concurring with the CIT(A)'s approach, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to prove delivery of material, additions were justified to account for the profit element in the bogus purchase transactions. The CIT(A) rightly considered the assessee's declared Gross Profit Rate while making the estimation.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove delivery, additions were justifiable to account for the profit element in the transactions, considering the low-margin nature of the steel business. Therefore, the estimation made by the CIT(A) was found to be correct.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid. While the purchases could not be fully substantiated, the addition was reduced from 12.5% to 5% of the suspicious purchases, considering the nature of the assessee's business.
The Tribunal held that the enormous jump in share price without economic justification, coupled with evidence of manipulation and accommodation entries, indicated a dubious transaction. The disallowance of long-term capital gains and commission was upheld.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. Following precedent in the assessee's own case, the disallowance was restricted to 4%.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. The addition should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal solely for being filed manually instead of electronically, without adjudicating on the merits. The appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding IT services fees and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the issue on merits after examining these documents.
The Tribunal upheld the addition on account of bogus purchases, but restricted it to 6% of the purchase value, following its own precedent in the assessee's sister concern's case for AY 2011-12.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to substantiate purchases, a profit element should be accounted for. The additions were reduced to 12.5% of the purchases, and the penalty was dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to substantiate the purchases, the profit element embedded in these transactions could be sustained. The addition was reduced to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, following a CBDT circular directing withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold. The Tribunal noted that the appeal could be recalled if the Revenue provided evidence of exceptions to the circular.
The Tribunal held that advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred with third parties are for the assessee's business and do not constitute an international transaction. The disallowance under Section 14A was also contested.
The Tribunal held that issuing notices and completing an assessment in the name of a non-existent entity (amalgamated company) is a substantive illegality, not a procedural defect. Therefore, the assessment order was void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that issuing jurisdictional notices and completing the assessment in the name of a non-existent company, despite being informed of the amalgamation, constitutes a substantive illegality. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal, following its own previous order in the assessee's case, restricted the addition on account of bogus purchases to 2% of the alleged bogus purchase amount. The Tribunal also directed the AO to ensure no double addition was made for purchases already accounted for.
The Tribunal agreed with the contentions of the Departmental Representative and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, while granting liberty to the appellant to point out exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the source of income is the transfer of shares, and STT-paid long-term capital loss and non-STT paid long-term capital gains are merely segments of this source, not separate sources. Therefore, the set-off is permissible.
The Tribunal upheld the addition on account of bogus purchases, but restricted it to 6% of the purchase value, following its own precedent in the assessee's sister concern's case for AY 2011-12.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 50.00 lakhs, which is the limit for filing appeals by the Revenue as per CBDT Circulars. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the issue of disallowance on non-genuine purchases had already been adjudicated by the CIT(A), leading to the merger of the AO's order with the CIT(A)'s order. Revising an order that has merged with an equal authority's order is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the prices charged by the sister concern were competitive and comparable, and the AO had not provided any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the addition made by estimating net profit was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that since the addition/disallowance on which the penalty was based was already deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty cannot survive. Additionally, the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the waiver of loan, being capital in nature and not a trading liability, does not attract Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, depreciation is a statutory allowance and not an expenditure, and its claim on fixed assets is independent of loan waivers. The Pr. CIT's revisionary order was deemed unsustainable as the AO had already conducted a meaningful inquiry and was satisfied with the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that sales were not doubted, implying purchases must have occurred. It directed the Assessing Officer to examine the difference in gross profit rates between genuine and alleged bogus purchases. The disallowance should be limited to this difference, or 3% if the difference is less.
The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment effective from A.Y. 2015-16, the term 'a residential house' in Section 54 did not restrict the deduction to only one property. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction for investments made in two residential houses.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings. The reassessment was deemed bad in law because the reasons recorded did not establish the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, a prerequisite for reopening beyond four years.