Loading ITAT cases…
401 orders · Page 1 of 9
The Tribunal held that the AO had valid grounds to reopen the assessment as the return was processed under section 143(1). However, it found that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing loan confirmations, ledger accounts, and bank statements, and the AO/CIT(A) failed to disprove the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal held that since Sureshbhai Prajapati had already been assessed substantively on the seized cash amount, and the assessee could not substantiate the source of the cash or its handing over to Sureshbhai, the protective addition in the assessee's hands was not justified. The CIT(A)'s decision to reject the assessee's claim was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order appeared to be based on incorrect facts regarding the total amount of purchases. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the appeal back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO had valid grounds to reopen the assessment as the return was processed under section 143(1). However, it found that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing loan confirmations, ledger accounts, and bank statements, and the AO/CIT(A) failed to disprove the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on fixed deposits made in the assessee's name before the formation of the cooperative society is taxable in the hands of the assessee. It further held that deduction under Section 80IB(10) is allowable for car parking, resale of flats after cancellation of the original agreement, and on a prorata basis for eligible parts of the project.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified as the assessee failed to disclose full and true material facts regarding the accommodation entries. However, the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit and disallowance of interest were set aside due to the AO's failure to verify the transaction's genuineness despite the assessee providing prima facie evidence.
The Tribunal held that while the suppliers were not genuine, the purchases themselves were not entirely bogus as the assessee had consumed the materials. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in these purchases, estimated at 3%, was added to the assessee's income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to rebut the evidence regarding share purchases and to justify the payment treated as a charge on income. The Tribunal noted that provisions of the Articles of Association do not override the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in treating the income from sale of securities as capital gains, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. The Tribunal found no change in facts to warrant a different conclusion.
The Tribunal held that the scope of assessment under Section 153A is limited to incriminating evidence found during the search, and it cannot be used to have a second inning of assessment. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that the AO had valid grounds to reopen the assessment as the return was processed under section 143(1). However, it found that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing loan confirmations, ledger accounts, and bank statements, and the AO/CIT(A) failed to disprove the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee surrendered the income to avoid litigation and with a clear condition of no penalty, and no specific concealment was detected by the AO, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The AO had not brought any evidence to prove concealment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the loan transactions by furnishing necessary documentary evidence, including confirmations, bank statements, and audited accounts. The Tribunal noted that the primary basis for the addition was the retracted statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding that the information considered by the CIT(A) was already available to the AO during the original and reassessment proceedings. Therefore, it was not new information.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 115BBE disallowing set off of losses was prospective, effective from AY 2017-18. Therefore, for AY 2014-15, the assessee was entitled to set off losses.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified as the assessee failed to disclose full and true material facts regarding the accommodation entries. However, the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit and disallowance of interest were set aside due to the AO's failure to verify the transaction's genuineness despite the assessee providing prima facie evidence.
The Tribunal held that the scope of assessment under Section 153A is limited to incriminating evidence found during the search, and it cannot be used to have a second inning of assessment. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in similar cases.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by providing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders, even for parties who could not appear before the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to exclude receipts transferred to other hoteliers and unrealized tour receipts from the total business receipts for Section 80HHD deduction. It also restored the issue of miscellaneous income to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the non-service of the mandatory notice under section 143(2) on the assessee is a serious defect that renders the assessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order null and void. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not justified as the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders, including both individuals and renowned financial institutions. The AO had not adequately considered the provided documentation, such as bank statements and audited balance sheets of corporate shareholders.
The Tribunal held that the method adopted by the assessee to value the shares and then sell them to a group concern was proper and in accordance with the normal course of business. The Tribunal also agreed that the assessee's decision to sell listed shares at a particular price, considering market liquidity, was a prudent business decision.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases. However, the addition was reduced from 12.5% to 6.5% of the bogus purchases, considering VAT and profit margins.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since sales were not disputed, the entire alleged bogus purchases could not be disallowed. Disallowance should be limited to the extent of undeclared gross profit.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that if the cost of acquisition cannot be determined, capital gains cannot be computed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was entitled to the constructed area as part of retirement and the repurchase by the firm was for a specific sum.
The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to the differential profit rate between undisputed and disputed purchases, following the precedent set by the Bombay High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case was not similar to the cited precedents where the allotment was from a cooperative society or DDA. Since the flat was purchased from a builder and the assessee failed to provide evidence of having the right to transfer at the allotment stage, the claim for long-term capital gains was rejected.
The Tribunal held that State taxes paid overseas are not covered under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. The Tribunal also addressed transfer pricing issues, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the appropriate profit level indicator and the treatment of outsourcing costs.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was without basis as the AO had made sufficient inquiries into the overseas bank account transactions. The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions and the Delhi High Court's ruling in India Trade Promotion Organisation. It directed the AO to adjust the refund in accordance with the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated and completed in the name of a non-existent entity (Bombay Paints Ltd.) are without jurisdiction. Following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., such assessments are a nullity.
The Tribunal held that the activity of importing diamonds for re-export, even if considered trading, qualifies as 'services' under Section 10AA of the Act, by referring to the definition of 'services' under the SEZ Act and its rules. The overriding effect of the SEZ Act was also considered.
The Tribunal held that for Section 41(1) to apply, the Assessing Officer must prove that the liability ceased to exist and the assessee derived a benefit. Since the liability was eventually paid after RBI approval, there was no remission or cessation of liability.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance for employee travel advances, agreeing that the expenditure had crystallized. Regarding Section 40(a)(ia) disallowances, the Tribunal found that where tax was deducted at a lower rate based on department certificates or where there was short deduction, no disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the entire alleged bogus purchases could not be disallowed as sales were not disputed. The disallowance was correctly restricted to the extent of gross profit.
The Tribunal held that mere disallowances do not automatically lead to a penalty under section 271AAB. The assessee had made full disclosures, and the expenses were genuine business expenses properly accounted for. The Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in exercising powers under Section 263 as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry regarding the commencement and completion of the housing project as directed by the Tribunal. The AO's assessment order was cryptic and lacked factual findings.
The Tribunal held that advances received for property sales where the sale deed was not registered and the risk/reward had not passed to the buyer could not be treated as income. However, the issue regarding sundry creditors was remitted back to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal restored both appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-computation of GP. This was to be done in light of the Bombay High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co., considering the assessee's submissions and the undisputed sales declared.
The Tribunal held that Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was attracted as the property was vacant and no rent was received. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had rented out the property in a subsequent year and offered income, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the Mangalore unit was not formed by splitting up an existing business due to the scheme of amalgamation and that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for Section 10B deduction. The Tribunal also found that expenses under Section 35(2AB) were correctly adjusted.
The Tribunal held that investments acquired through amalgamation/merger should be excluded from disallowance under Section 14A. It also held that the bad debt claim for unrecoverable lease rent was allowable as per Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's gross receipts in the preceding year were below Rs. 1 crore. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for audit under Section 44AB, and consequently, the provisions for TDS did not apply.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Following the Delhi High Court's judgment, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to the exempt income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction for only one residential property, aligning with Special Bench and High Court rulings. The additional ground regarding the land being agricultural was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment as it was based on tangible material. However, it reduced the estimated profit on bogus purchases from 12.5% to 6% after considering the totality of facts and the nature of the assessee's business.
The Tribunal held that investments acquired through amalgamation/merger should be excluded from disallowance under Section 14A. It also held that the bad debt claim for unrecoverable lease rent was allowable as per Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that since the recipients had shown the income in their returns and following the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., the assessee was not in default. Therefore, the interest levied under Section 201(1A) was unjustified.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in estimating the profit element at 6.5% on non-genuine purchases. The Revenue failed to rebut the findings of the CIT(A) with evidence.