Loading ITAT cases…
447 orders · Page 2 of 9
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases with cogent evidence, as notices to the parties were unserved and they were not produced. Therefore, the addition of 12.5% of the questioned purchases was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, as the information used was already available during the original assessment. Therefore, the reopening was not permissible.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 6% on bogus purchases, finding it reasonable when the AO did not doubt the sales made from these purchases. Therefore, the addition was restricted to the estimated profit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the agreement for royalty payment did not need to be in writing and that the terms of the sub-licensing agreement with an unrelated party could be used as an internal CUP. Therefore, no transfer pricing adjustment was warranted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. It found that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases and that the CIT(A)'s decision was in line with High Court precedents regarding the profit element in such transactions.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not made sufficient preliminary inquiry to verify the genuineness of the transactions, distinguishing the case from N.K. Proteins Ltd. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain a part of the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on residential properties, following its earlier decisions. It restored issues related to amortization of land premium, lease equalization charge, and expenditure relating to exempt income for book profit to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For the revenue's grounds, the Tribunal applied its decisions from the assessee's appeal, indicating a mixed outcome.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not conducted elementary inquiries and distinguished the case from N.K. Proteins Ltd. The CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO were void ab initio due to a vague notice. The notice failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, indicating a non-application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT failed to record specific findings on how the N.K. Proteins Ltd. decision was applicable to the assessee's facts. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order lacked the necessary justification to deem the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on residential properties, following its earlier decisions. It restored issues related to amortization of land premium, lease equalization charge, and expenditure relating to exempt income for book profit to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For the revenue's grounds, the Tribunal applied its decisions from the assessee's appeal, indicating a mixed outcome.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the agricultural nature of the land. Therefore, the matter was set aside for de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the AO's initiation of penalty proceedings without clearly specifying the limb under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs Samson Perinchery, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that fees under Section 234E could not be levied while processing TDS statements under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015. This decision was based on previous ITAT rulings and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that income from cloud hosting services is not royalty under the Act or the India-US tax treaty, following its own previous decisions. It also held that interest under Section 234B is not leviable on the payee when the payer fails to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal held that a retrospective amendment cannot create an obligation to deduct tax when the provision was not in force at the time of payment. Therefore, no disallowance could be made under Section 40(a)(i) based on the retrospective amendment.
The Tribunal held that during a transition period, technicalities should not override substantial justice. The appeal was therefore set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after allowing e-filing.
The Tribunal held that the security deposits were genuine and not unexplained cash credits, considering the assessee's business model and the refund of deposits to disengaged agents. It also found that the service charges paid to FINO were for distinct services and that the AO lacked concrete evidence to prove sham transactions or tax evasion.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof by filing voluminous documentary evidence, which the CIT(A) found could not be doubted. Since the Assessing Officer failed to bring any incriminating evidence to show the purchases were not genuine, the addition of profit element was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on residential properties, following its earlier decisions. It restored issues related to amortization of land premium, lease equalization charge, and expenditure relating to exempt income for book profit to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For the revenue's grounds, the Tribunal applied its decisions from the assessee's appeal, indicating a mixed outcome.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as it failed to provide specific findings on how the N.K. Proteins Ltd. decision applied to the assessee's facts and how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the assessee incurred any expenditure attributable to earning exempt income. Since the assessee managed investments personally and no expenses were debited to the P&L account, no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was warranted.
The Tribunal held that payments made for non-compete fees, as part of a composite agreement for acquiring a business, are eligible for depreciation. This decision followed the Tribunal's own ruling for a preceding assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had tangible material to re-open the assessment and that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases. The addition of 12.5% profit on non-genuine purchases was upheld.
The Tribunal held that fees under Section 234E could not be levied while processing TDS statements under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015. This decision was based on previous ITAT rulings and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to move for recalling the order if it was later found that the appeal did not fall under any exceptions in the circular.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly examine the facts. The two flats were purchased as a 'Jodi' flat and converted into one unit by the vendor, and the assessee also bought it as one unit. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not considered the reasonable cause for the delay. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the assessee's case in light of Section 273B, which allows for penalty waiver if there is a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the addition to 8% of the non-genuine purchases, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of an appeal in electronic form is a procedural defect that can be cured. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for admission and adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that all facts were not on record as the assessee did not cooperate with the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) rejected additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof by filing voluminous documentary evidence, which could not be doubted. Since the Assessing Officer failed to bring any incriminating evidence to show the purchases were not genuine, the addition/disallowance of profit element was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of non-genuine purchases, considering that the assessee's sales and consumption of raw materials were not disputed.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on residential properties, following its earlier decisions. It restored issues related to amortization of land premium, lease equalization charge, and expenditure relating to exempt income for book profit to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For the revenue's grounds, the Tribunal applied its decisions from the assessee's appeal, indicating a mixed outcome.
The Tribunal held that the AO's initiation of penalty proceedings without clearly specifying the limb under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs Samson Perinchery, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the addition was based on incriminating material found during the search was a factual one that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated. While the CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the absence of such material, the Revenue presented reports from the AO indicating that incriminating materials related to the introduction of share capital and premium were found during the search. The Tribunal noted that neither the AO in the assessment order nor the CIT(A) in the impugned order had properly verified these seized materials. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after conducting a proper inquiry and verification of all ancillary facts and seized materials, including the reports submitted by the Revenue. The CIT(A) was also directed to examine the creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transactions, especially in light of the finding that investors might be shell companies. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the AO's initiation of penalty proceedings without clearly specifying the limb under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs Samson Perinchery, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the disputed purchases. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not made elementary inquiries despite the assessee providing some documentation.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the revenue's lack of opposition. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the disputed purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,25,347/-, and deleted the balance. This was based on the finding that corresponding sales were not doubted and only the profit embedded in such sales should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that payments made for non-compete fees, as part of a composite agreement for acquiring a business, are eligible for depreciation. This decision followed the Tribunal's own ruling for a preceding assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the expenses, considering the assessee's change in accounting method from cash to mercantile. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of the audit report with the original return is a curable defect under Section 139(9). Since the assessee voluntarily filed the audit report with the revised return, the defect was removed, making the original return valid. Therefore, the carry forward of loss was permissible.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings that the assessee's business had commenced. It also agreed that interest income should be treated as business income and that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable when no exempt income is earned.
The Tribunal held that while the entire purchases could not be disallowed, an addition to account for the profit element in bogus purchases was justified. The estimation was reduced from 25% to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that while the non-genuine purchases could not be allowed, the addition should be restricted to the profit element. It reduced the disallowance to 8% of the non-genuine purchases, considering the nature of business and profit margins.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the differential gross profit rate of 5.3% (12.5% estimated by AO minus 7.2% declared by assessee). The Tribunal found the AO justified in estimating the profit element due to non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below ₹.50 Lakhs, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross objection was also treated as infructuous and dismissed.