Loading ITAT cases…
401 orders · Page 5 of 9
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 for AY 2015-16, the appeals became infructuous as the AO had already given relief, and thus dismissed them. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to allow deduction only for the amount actually transferred to the special reserve during the relevant financial year, rejecting reliance on subsequent year's reserves.
The Tribunal found that the source of cash deposits was doubtful and remanded the issue to the AO for re-examination. However, it deleted the additions made for low household withdrawals, stating the AO lacked evidence to justify the estimation.
The Tribunal held that the appeal against the consequential assessment order was not maintainable as the same issues were pending before the AO for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow only 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. It noted that while the assessee failed to conclusively prove the purchases, the Assessing Officer also did not complete necessary investigations and solely relied on third-party information.
The Tribunal held that since the additions were purely on an estimation basis (12.5%) and not a complete disallowance, it did not indicate any mala fide intention to conceal income. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the disallowance under Section 14A was not properly addressed by the lower authorities. The matter of lease rental income and interest disallowance were also remitted for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the appeals became infructuous as the AO had already given relief, and thus dismissed them. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to allow deduction only for the amount actually transferred to the special reserve during the relevant financial year, rejecting reliance on subsequent year's reserves.
The Tribunal found that the AO failed to provide specific reasons for the ad-hoc disallowance. Considering the assessee's agreement for a 5% disallowance and the nature of expenses, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 10%.
The Tribunal held that both the assessee and the AO failed to conclusively prove their case with necessary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order of estimating profit at 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases, considering it a reasonable method to settle the dispute.
The Tribunal found that the AO's disallowances were based on self-made vouchers and that the assessee had provided supporting bills and vouchers for most expenses. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance of tempo, conveyance, travel, sundry, and petrol expenses to 10% of the said expenses.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed the additions without considering the judicial precedents cited by the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that both parties failed to conclusively prove their case with necessary evidence. While the AO relied on third-party information, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the AO. The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the amount of alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 8% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering it a reasonable estimation of profit in such cases.
The Tribunal held that a defective return cannot be considered invalid ipso facto without issuing a notice for defects. Therefore, the AY 2008-09 return could not be treated as invalid. The matter was restored to the AO to decide the pending rectification application and the issues afresh.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition on account of bogus purchases by bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on such purchases to the same level as other genuine purchases. Grounds related to the validity of reopening and denial of opportunity were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition for bogus purchases by bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on such purchases to the same level as other genuine purchases, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. Grounds related to reopening validity and denial of opportunity were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that while the assessee failed to conclusively prove purchases and the AO failed to complete investigations, estimating profit on bogus purchases is a reasonable approach. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition of share premium as taxable income. The Tribunal relied on CBDT instructions and High Court/ITAT decisions which treat share premium as a capital account transaction not giving rise to income.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment proceedings are quashed.
The Tribunal found the addition of 12.5% to be excessive given the assessee's declared gross profit of 7%. It held that a 6% addition over the declared profit would be reasonable and fair.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly examined whether the payment was a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure based on commercial expediency and benefit to the company. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that once an asset is put to use and subsequently becomes unusable due to reasons beyond the assessee's control, full depreciation should not be denied. The CIT(A)'s order allowing full depreciation was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity (due to amalgamation) are null and void ab-initio. Therefore, the assessment order cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory condition for a valid assessment. Complete absence of notice, unlike infirmities in service, is not curable under Section 292BB.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's sales were not doubted and that VAT at 5% would have been applicable. Therefore, the profit rate was restricted to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that since the sales were not doubted and the assessee had already declared a Gross Profit of 7.59%, the profit embedded in these purchases should be considered. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the profit rate to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the addition for bogus purchases should be restricted to the extent of bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on such purchases to the same level as on other genuine purchases. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant an opportunity to the assessee before making the addition.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to present its case and evidence, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition for bogus purchases to the extent that the Gross Profit (GP) rate on such purchases matches the GP rate on genuine purchases. This was based on a jurisdictional High Court ruling.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal noted that the issue on merits was covered by its own prior decision for the preceding year, which held that income generated during a trial run is not taxable as commercial operations had not commenced. Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction was to be reconsidered in light of this subsequent decision.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee on certain allocation keys for direct expenses, direct marketing costs, and selling/distribution expenditure, subject to factual verification. However, the method for allocating other overheads was found opaque and was remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It relied on previous ITAT decisions and the findings of the CIT(A) that the entities providing the credits were genuine and their creditworthiness was not doubted. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the deletion of additions related to cash deposits, as the assessee's opening cash balance was not disputed.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It relied on previous ITAT decisions and the findings of the CIT(A) that the entities providing the credits were genuine and their creditworthiness was not doubted. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the deletion of additions related to cash deposits, as the assessee's opening cash balance was not disputed.
The Tribunal allowed the commission payment, holding that it was for services rendered by the Managing Director as per his terms of appointment. The Tribunal distinguished this from dividend payments, which are a return on investment.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not examine the accounting method adopted for income computation. The completion of the project and the timing of profit realization were unclear, necessitating further examination.