Loading ITAT cases…
447 orders · Page 3 of 9
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 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 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 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 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.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in applying the decision of Gujarat High Court in Simit P Sheth without considering the actual VAT rate applicable to the assessee's business. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
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 held that the Assessing Officer cannot make variations in the final assessment order that were not proposed in the draft assessment order, unless directed by the Dispute Resolution Panel. The AO's deviation from the draft order regarding set-off of long-term capital losses was deemed impermissible.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's power under Section 263 was validly exercised because the Assessing Officer failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the nature of the excise duty exemption. However, the CIT's direction to tax the exemption as revenue was set aside.
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 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 found that the AO did not conduct independent inquiries or provide the assessee with statements relied upon. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal estimated the profit element from the bogus purchases at 4%.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be considered on a unit-wise basis, without setting off losses from other units. This decision was based on the Tribunal's prior ruling in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide material evidence to prove the alleged cash payment of ₹1.50 crores to certain sellers. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding it to be based on conjectures and surmises.
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 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 AO's order for levying penalty was silent on concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The addition was based on a notional interest charge, and there was no actual concealment by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's denial of ownership of the bank account provided a valid reason for not signing the consent waiver form. Therefore, the penalty for non-compliance with the notice under Section 133(6) was not justified.
For AY 2012-13, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and directed the AO to verify the TDS claim afresh. For AY 2013-14, the tribunal allowed 20% of the claimed expenses for flat sale and foreign travel, while dismissing the depreciation issue as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide necessary evidence to prove the nexus between the consultancy charges and the business activity, and also failed to prove that services were rendered by the consultant. Therefore, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer is restricted from admitting additional claims without a revised return, appellate authorities have the discretion to admit such claims. The CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim solely on technical grounds without adjudicating it on merits.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of unsubstantiated expenses or a bona fide omission to offer interest on refund to tax does not warrant penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was vacated in these instances.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a trustee of a tax-transparent entity, should be viewed through the lens of its beneficiaries. Since the beneficiaries were taxable entities in the Netherlands, the assessee was eligible for treaty protection under Article 13 of the India-Netherlands DTAA.
The Tribunal held that the write-back of the loan due to a family settlement was a capital write-off and not income under Section 41(1). The action of the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) in invoking Section 263 was considered erroneous and against natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions for condonation of delay were not convincing due to lack of supporting evidence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment was confined to the limited reasons for which the case was selected. The Pr. CIT could not expand the scope of the AO's jurisdiction through revision under Section 263. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the write-off of the advance as a business loss was a genuine and bona fide transaction. The fact that the recovered amount was offered to tax in a subsequent assessment year further strengthened this conclusion.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had duly verified the issue and allowed the deduction, making the assessment order not erroneous. The business was considered set up, and interest expenditure on land acquisition for development should be treated as a period cost charged to the Profit & Loss account, not capitalized.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. The mere fact that creditors could not be served or produced does not automatically imply cessation of liability. Cessation must be in law, and the debt must not be recoverable or the limitation period must have expired, which was not established.
The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that only the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases should be brought to tax. The Tribunal found merit in restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that while the purchases were found to be bogus, the AO failed to conduct elementary inquiries into the bank transactions. Therefore, estimating profit at 12.5% was considered appropriate.
The Tribunal remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no illegality in deleting the penalty due to a defective notice. Furthermore, the quantum of income itself had been ordered to be deleted in the assessee's own case for the same assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the taxability of the entire income in the residence state is the determining factor for treaty benefits, not the mode of taxability. Since the beneficiaries of the tax-transparent entity were taxable in the Netherlands, the assessee was eligible for treaty protection.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not substantiated the genuineness of the purchase transactions with irrefutable evidence, and the revenue had not conducted extensive verifications. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the AO for necessary verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 6.5% on alleged bogus purchases, finding it a reasonable rate to resolve the dispute. Both the revenue's and assessee's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimate basis. Therefore, the penalty order was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the immunity granted by the ITSC after the second application covered the entire income declared by the assessee for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently substantiated the genuineness of the purchases with documentary evidence. The AO's conclusion of bogus purchases was not supported by proper verification, and the supplier was indeed found to be existing and operating.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal allowed the deduction of interest expenditure, finding that the borrowed funds were not diverted for non-business purposes and the assessee had sufficient own funds.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the disputed purchases. While acknowledging the AO's findings, the Tribunal noted the AO had not conducted sufficient elementary inquiries.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 6.5% on alleged bogus purchases, finding it a reasonable rate to resolve the dispute. Both the revenue's and assessee's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of salaries paid to expatriate employees was justified as the assessee failed to prove they were exclusively for Indian operations and that the offshore salary claim was not sufficiently substantiated. However, the transfer pricing adjustment related to ECB transactions was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly decided the matter as there was no cessation of liability under Section 41(1) as the liabilities were outstanding and not written off. The addition was restricted to 10% by the CIT(A), which was deemed judicious.
The Tribunal held that certain day-to-day expenses incurred to maintain the corporate status of the assessee should be allowed as business expenses, even without business income. However, other expenses like municipal tax, director remuneration, and finance charges were disallowed for lack of nexus with business activity.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied, indicating a non-application of mind. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied has been set aside and restored to the AO, the penalty order cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the transactions between the assessee and stockists were in the nature of sales of goods, not principal-to-agent relationships. Therefore, TDS under Section 194H was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction as the assessee's trading was in government securities and bonds, not shares, making Section 73 inapplicable. The revision was based on an incorrect assumption of facts and aimed at roving inquiries.