Loading ITAT cases…
401 orders · Page 3 of 9
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of salary expenses made on an ad-hoc basis by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was without basis and deleted it. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance of ROC fees paid on further public issue of shares, finding them to be capital in nature.
The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering it a reasonable estimation of suppressed profit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of salary expenses made on an ad-hoc basis by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was without basis and deleted it. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance of ROC fees paid on further public issue of shares, finding them to be capital in nature.
The Tribunal restored the disallowance of depreciation and repairs for the Lonavala property to the AO for verification of consistency with prior years. The disallowance for repairs to the New Delhi property was also restored to the AO for verification of its sale and capital gains treatment.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition on account of bogus purchases to the extent of bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on such purchases to the same level as that of other genuine purchases. The Assessing Officer was also instructed to provide an opportunity to the assessee before making the addition.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition on bogus purchases to the extent of bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on such purchases to the same rate as that of other genuine purchases, following a High Court precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that carriage fees do not fall under the definition of 'royalty' for the purpose of Section 194J. It also affirmed that a mere shortfall in TDS deduction, as opposed to no deduction, does not justify disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of salary expenses made on an ad-hoc basis by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was without basis and deleted it. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance of ROC fees paid on further public issue of shares, finding them to be capital in nature.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous decision in the assessee's own case. Following the co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the Principal CIT was not correct. Following the decisions of coordinate benches and High Courts, the Tribunal quashed the revisionary order.
The Tribunal held that since the primary addition leading to the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted, the penalty could not survive. Regarding the penalty under Section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found that the assessee had made sufficient compliance by filing an affidavit and a reply, thus the penalty was not justifiable.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs.2,61,873/- on foreign exchange loss, stating that such expenses are allowable if booked following AS-11 and the AO disallowed it without giving an opportunity to explain. For the foreign remittances, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) who had partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs. 2,14,895/- by applying the differential Gross Profit (GP) between the current and previous year.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it fell below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report was due to the ill health of the proprietor, which constituted a reasonable cause. Since the audit report was filed before the completion of assessment and no loss was caused to the exchequer, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the 60-day period for furnishing documents should be counted from the notice under Section 92D(3), not Section 92CA(2). It also found that no TP adjustment meant no tax evasion, and the change of consultant constituted a reasonable cause for delay.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it fell below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, adding 100% of the amount was excessive. They directed the AO to make an addition of 4% on the bogus purchases to account for estimated profit, as the corresponding sales were not disputed.
The Tribunal held that changing the head of income from capital gains to business income, when all particulars were disclosed, does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% GP rate applied by the AO to be unrealistic for the steel industry. It directed the AO to apply a GP rate of 4% on the bogus purchases, considering the industry norms and the assessee's declared GP rates.
The tribunal held that the non-competition fee paid to ward off rival competition in perpetuity is capital expenditure and thus not deductible. The tribunal also addressed various grounds related to the calculation of deduction under Section 80-O.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 25% of the bogus purchases, finding no infirmity in the order. The Tribunal noted that the AO had added the entire purchases without disputing the corresponding sales.
The Tribunal decided that the issues and facts were the same as in the preceding assessment year. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was no longer maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the revised monetary limits set by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The circular applies to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that strategic investments in subsidiaries are includible for disallowance as per the Supreme Court decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. However, it also held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered and the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that the absence of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) renders the reassessment proceedings invalid and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that it would be reasonable to assess the profit element on alleged bogus purchases at 12.50%. The disallowance of expenses was not disturbed as it was not pressed before the first appellate authority.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently substantiated its claim of loss with documentary evidence, including correspondence and the Reserve Bank of India's approval for writing off the unrealized export proceeds. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that while the appeals were filed manually, there was proper compliance considering the circumstances and the extension granted by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeals should be decided on merits.
The Tribunal directed the inclusion of three companies as comparables for transfer pricing adjustments and deleted the addition made on non-AE transactions. It also directed verification for TDS and advance tax credit, and dismissed penalty proceedings as premature.
The Tribunal held that three comparables rejected by the TPO should be included, as they were not persistently loss-making and had been accepted in previous years. The addition made on non-AE transactions was also deleted, following prior tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) overlooked crucial facts, including the assessee's withdrawal of a similar claim before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that three specific comparables rejected by the TPO should be included for transfer pricing adjustments. It also deleted additions made on non-AE transactions, following previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that both the assessee and the AO failed to conclusively prove their cases. It directed the AO to estimate only 2% profit on the alleged bogus purchases, considering the nature of the business and previous ITAT rulings.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS on transponder hire charges, following its own consistent view in earlier assessment years. The grounds related to penalty proceedings were dismissed as pre-mature.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 41(1) was not sustainable as the liabilities were acknowledged in the books and not shown to have ceased. However, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 was upheld as the assessee failed to provide exceptions under Rule 6DD.
The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition of shares allotted pursuant to the corporatization of BSE should be the original cost of the membership card, as per Section 55(2)(ab) of the Act, even if depreciation was claimed on the membership card. The period of holding for indexation benefit would also include the period of original membership.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received was in the nature of reimbursement of expenses incurred due to the principle of mutuality and thus not taxable. The Commissioner's order under Section 263 was set aside as the AO had taken a plausible view.
The Tribunal held that the acquisition of occupancy rights should be reckoned from the date of the final and binding allotment letter, which was December 3, 1999. This date was considered relevant for determining the holding period for capital gains.