Loading ITAT cases…
401 orders · Page 8 of 9
The Tribunal held that the balance in the Profit & Loss Account cannot be equated with 'general reserves' for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viii) proviso, and dismissed the assessee's claim. It also rejected the claim for deduction of provisions for bad and doubtful debts, upholding the AO's order.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to substantiate the purchases, the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition to 25% to account for the profit element. The appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on margin money deposits is inextricably linked to the setting up of the power project and therefore partakes the character of a capital receipt. Consequently, it should be reduced from the capital work-in-progress.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings in the quantum assessment order was sufficient. It also found that the assessee's failure to respond to the show-cause notice and raise the plea of specific charge during penalty proceedings or appellate stages disentitled them from seeking relief on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure was revenue in nature and allowable as a business expense, following a co-ordinate bench decision. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee had no exempt income and dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding sales tax liability interest.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This decision was based on a CBDT circular directing withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were correctly treated as revenue expenditure, not to be capitalized as work-in-progress. This decision was based on accounting standards and a co-ordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of ₹50 lacs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals before the ITAT. The Revenue could not point out any exceptions to this circular.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds and evidence, noting that the AO had not dealt with item-wise additions and that the denial of exemption was solely based on the proviso to Section 2(15). The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee had satisfied the three essential tests for Section 68: identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and capacity of the investor. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to substantiate the purchases and prove the delivery of goods, the profit element embedded in these transactions was rightly considered by the CIT(A). The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s approach.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not fully substantiated, the assessee had made payments through banking channels and possessed primary purchase documents. Therefore, the addition should represent the profit element embedded in these transactions, which the CIT(A) had correctly done.
The Tribunal held that while the profit element in bogus purchases should be taxed, estimating it based on earlier years' GP rates on total sales was incorrect. Instead, a specific percentage of the bogus purchases was to be considered as profit.
The Tribunal held that only the taxable income component of a transaction can be taxed, not the entire transaction. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the disallowance was restricted to a reasonable percentage to cover revenue leakage.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the CIT(A), holding that only the profit element on bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire transaction. The revenue failed to provide any contrary decisions.
The Tribunal recalled the grounds related to write-off of capital advances and repairs to building. It directed the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate these issues after considering the factual matrix and the assessee's submissions, particularly in light of previous tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the addition to 3% of the alleged bogus purchases, finding that while the assessee provided some evidence, further proof was lacking, and the AO also relied solely on investigation reports.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271G was unjustified. It agreed with the lower appellate authority that the peculiar nature of the diamond trade made it infeasible to maintain the required segmental profitability records, and that the assessee had made substantial compliance.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored back to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to re-examine the factual aspect and reconsider the assessee's submissions in light of the cited judicial precedents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reasons for reopening were duly supplied to the assessee and that the AO had a valid basis to believe income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal affirmed that at the stage of reopening, the AO only needs a reasonable belief, not conclusive proof of escapement.
The Tribunal held that the amount received from Global Advertisers was correctly accounted for against the expenditure incurred for an audio release function. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was erroneous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal. It found that while the assessee failed to conclusively prove purchases, the AO also did not carry out sufficient investigation. The Tribunal agreed that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed, and the 12.5% estimation by CIT(A) was a reasonable method.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to conclusively prove the purchases and the Assessing Officer failed to conduct thorough investigations, it is appropriate to tax only the profit element embedded in such purchases. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 12.5% profit was considered a reasonable method to settle the dispute.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases, considering that the assessee had made corresponding sales and paid sales tax. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s conclusion to be fair and affirmed it.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering that the assessee had corresponding sales and had made payments through account payee cheques. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s conclusion to be fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the revenue is entitled to tax only the profit element embedded in the purchases, not the entire transaction. The CIT(A)'s reduction to 15% was considered reasonable to cover the profit element.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of purchases or the delivery of goods. The AO had rightly rejected the books of account and estimated the profit on these impugned purchases.
The Tribunal, following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Mohd. Haji Adam & Co., held that the addition for bogus purchases should be limited to bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same level as genuine purchases. The matter was remanded to the AO for recalculation.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance under Section 43B to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the reconciliation provided by the assessee. For the AY 2010-11, the Tribunal also directed the AO to verify the facts regarding the deposit of employee's contribution to ESI and PF and grant relief if deposited before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the Rs. 50 Lacs limit for appeals before the Tribunal as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. The addition should be limited to bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same level as other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) disallows deduction for cooperative banks, but not for cooperative societies investing in them. As long as the interest income is derived by a cooperative society from its investments with another cooperative society, the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is available.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without actual purchases. The addition should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was based on surmise and conjecture, as the Assessing Officer failed to provide cogent material to show that the payments exceeded fair market value. The Tribunal noted that the payments were not found to be bogus and the assessee had explained the reasons for them.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as inadmissible and also deciding on merits. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the CIT(A) to decide on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal agreed with the contention of the Departmental Representative that the appeals involved a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to point out any exceptions to this rule.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that a liability of the company towards the assessee's mother, taken over by the assessee, should be adjusted against the loan. The CIT(A)'s order was also found to be laconic and lacking in proper reasoning.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. The addition should be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same level as other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by submitting credentials establishing the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The inference drawn by the lower authorities was based on conjecture, and there's no presumption that individuals with small incomes cannot save.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable due to a lack of application of mind by the authorities below. There was no clear finding as to the specific charge or which aspect of section 271(1)(c) the assessee was guilty of infringing.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the evidence used by the AO was gathered after the search via a notice under Section 133(6), it did not constitute incriminating material. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make the additions.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the evidence used by the AO was gathered after the search via a notice under Section 133(6), it did not constitute incriminating material. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make the additions.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the evidence used by the AO was gathered after the search via a notice under Section 133(6), it did not constitute incriminating material. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make the additions.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the evidence used by the AO was gathered after the search via a notice under Section 133(6), it did not constitute incriminating material. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make the additions.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the evidence used by the AO was gathered after the search via a notice under Section 133(6), it did not constitute incriminating material. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make the additions.
The Tribunal held that the date of allotment of the flat is considered as the date of acquisition for the purpose of Section 54F. Since a substantial part of the capital gain was invested in acquiring the residential flat, the assessee is entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal held that internal comparables (Internal TNMM and Internal CUP) are to be preferred over external comparables for benchmarking international transactions. It also held that the business development and legal expenses were revenue in nature and not capital expenditure, as their genuineness was not disputed by lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had ruled in favor of the assessee for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 regarding the percentage of completion method. However, the Tribunal then stated that the remaining income was offered in the year under consideration (AY 2013-14) and accepted by the AO, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the valuation of closing stock at the lower of cost or NRV is a well-accepted accounting practice and consistently followed by the assessee. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was affirmed, as the diminution in value was a proper adjustment and not a claim for depreciation.