Loading ITAT cases…
401 orders · Page 4 of 9
The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's contention that the appeal's tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions were found. The appeal was dismissed based on the monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order in violation of the principles of natural justice by not affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on technical grounds. For the assessee's appeals, it was held that benefits from advance licenses are taxable only to the extent utilized in the relevant assessment year, following Supreme Court precedent. Certain repair expenditures were held to be revenue in nature.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on technical grounds. For the assessee's appeals, it was held that benefits from advance licenses are taxable only to the extent utilized in the relevant assessment year, following Supreme Court precedent. Certain repair expenditures were held to be revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that 'regular assessment' does not include assessments made pursuant to appellate directions. Therefore, interest under section 234B can only be charged up to the date of the original assessment order. Interest under section 220(2) is to be computed from the date of the fresh demand notice.
The Tribunal held that while purchases might not be entirely genuine, only the profit element embedded in such transactions should be taxed, not the entire purchase value. They directed the AO to estimate a 5% profit on the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that Section 50C was not applicable to the transfer of development rights. It noted that the AO failed to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer and ignored the encumbrance on the land, which reduced its fair market value.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that Section 50C was not applicable to the transfer of development rights. It noted that the AO failed to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer and ignored the encumbrance on the land, which reduced its fair market value.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, read with Rule 11U, was not applicable to the acquisition of shares in a foreign company before the amendment effective from April 1, 2019. The AO's valuation method was also found to be inconsistent with the rules applicable for the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that neither the assessee nor the AO conclusively proved their case with sufficient evidence. Following precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 12.50% profit on the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that neither the assessee nor the AO conclusively proved their case with sufficient evidence. Following precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 12.50% profit on the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO's dissatisfaction with the assessee's disallowance was objectively recorded. It also clarified that expenditure incurred in acquiring shares held as stock-in-trade, which incidentally yield dividend income, needs to be apportioned under Section 14A.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of royalty addition, following previous orders and High Court decisions. Other issues were either allowed or remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a transaction between two domestic related parties does not qualify as an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the transfer pricing adjustment made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and confirmations, to prove the genuineness of the unsecured loan transaction. The Tribunal noted that the loan was received and repaid through banking channels within the same assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of royalty addition, following previous orders and High Court decisions. Other issues were either allowed or remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly by estimating profit at 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases, considering that sales were not doubted. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the CIT(A) had correctly applied the 12.5% profit rate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases. Both the AO and CIT(A) failed to conclusively prove their cases with sufficient evidence, leading to an estimation of profit.
The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred in acquiring shares, even if held as stock-in-trade, must be apportioned under Section 14A if dividend income is earned incidentally. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, finding the facts similar to a precedent case. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. The matter was set aside to the AO to restrict the addition to the gross profit rate on such purchases, similar to genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the addition was restricted to the profit element embedded in such purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases, rather than the entire amount. The Tribunal agreed that the purchases were not genuine but the consideration received back was used for grey market purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening did not indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose full and true material facts. Since the reopening was done beyond four years, the proviso to Section 147 was applicable, and the lack of such disclosure in the reasons rendered the reopening invalid.
The Tribunal held that ICDs/CFSs are to be considered as 'Inland Ports' for the purpose of Section 80IA, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the notional interest income on the loan advanced to the AE should be adjusted against the marketing service fees paid to the AE. The matter was restored to the AO/TPO for verification of the quantification.
The Tribunal held that since the sales were not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases was incorrect. The matter was set aside to the AO to restrict the addition to the gross profit rate of genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the rate charged by the assessee from its AE for UK visa processing services was fair and reasonable, considering it was higher than the rate charged to a third party and that the AE provided infrastructure. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue had accepted similar benchmarking in preceding years.
The Tribunal, following the Bombay High Court's decision in M/s Mohommad Haji Adam & Co., held that the addition should be restricted to the extent of bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on disputed purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases. The AO was directed to verify payments through banks.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that in cases of alleged hawala purchases, only the profit element should be taxed, not the entire purchase amount. The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the assessee conclusively proved their case with sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to the profit element embedded in such purchases, aligning it with the profit rate of genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of appeals in electronic form is a procedural defect that can be cured. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits after the assessee filed them electronically.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of appeals in electronic form is a procedural defect that can be cured. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits after the assessee filed them electronically.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly appreciate the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the provided details.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering that the sales were not doubted and VAT was paid on them.
The Tribunal held that share gains should be treated as capital gains, following previous orders and CBDT circulars. The issue of dividend exemption was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the purchases were claimed to have been entered in the stock register and their sales accounted for, the entire value could not be treated as income. The addition was rightly restricted to the profit element involved in procuring goods at a discounted value from the open market.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT cannot invoke Section 263 when two views are possible, as established by Supreme Court judgments. Since the Assessing Officer's assessment was based on a plausible view, and the Pr. CIT's view was another possible interpretation, the Pr. CIT's order was considered erroneous.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not entirely genuine, the sales made from these purchases were not doubted. Therefore, a reasonable profit margin should be estimated on the purchases instead of disallowing the entire amount.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of appeals in electronic form is a procedural defect that can be cured. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits after the assessee filed them electronically.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of appeals in electronic form is a procedural defect that can be cured. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits after the assessee filed them electronically.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of appeals in electronic form is a procedural defect that can be cured. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits after the assessee filed them electronically.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of 10% on customs clearance and transportation charges should be restricted to 10% of cash expenditure, and the penalty charges incurred for service tax and customs clearance in a compensatory nature should be allowed after verification by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on repairs to rented premises, even if providing enduring benefit in the revenue field, is allowable as revenue expenditure. For club expenses, a 20% disallowance was deemed reasonable, and the disallowance of hotel expenses was deleted due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of appeals in electronic form is a procedural defect that can be cured. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits after the assessee filed them electronically.
The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. It further held that the disallowance should be restricted to 12.5% of bogus purchases, reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal agreed that the profit rate of 12.5% was on the higher side. Considering the VAT paid and purchases made at a lower price, a further deduction was allowed.