Loading ITAT cases…
447 orders · Page 4 of 9
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 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 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.
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 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor and the source of capital introduction. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not earned any exempt income, the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified. The deletion of disallowance by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since sales were not doubted, 100% addition was not justified. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of bogus purchases, reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to justify the applicability of internal TNMM with supporting data. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the commission income to 0.25% of the transaction value, following its own precedent. Similarly, the addition on account of non-genuine purchases was restricted to 12.5%, also in line with previous rulings.
The Tribunal held that only real income is taxable and that even if a transaction is not verifiable, only the taxable income component, not the entire transaction, can be taxed. The addition should be restricted to a reasonable percentage of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat interest earned on margin money as business income, capitalizing it as it was inextricably linked to setting up the power plant. However, the issue regarding the treatment of income tax paid in capital work in progress was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below ₹.50 Lakhs, making it non-maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The assessee's cross-objection was treated as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the TPO was not justified in determining the arm's length price of reimbursement of expenses at nil without following prescribed methods. It also noted that the revenue sharing model of 67:33 was consistent with previous years, including AY 2009-10, where a similar adjustment was deleted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, considering the CBDT circulars enhancing the monetary limits for filing appeals and the low tax effect, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that a reasonable opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were decided ex-parte and the CIT(A)'s orders were not speaking orders. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that income from offshore supply contracts, where goods were supplied and payments received outside India, is not taxable in India. This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the assessee established the essence of mutuality in its activities and was entitled to full exemption for its business income. For the interest income, the Tribunal ruled that the entire interest earned from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d) without apportionment of expenses.
The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction of API imports. However, it directed the AO to re-examine and make necessary adjustments under the CUP method for differences in contract terms, quantity, market, credit period, delivery terms, and foreign currency risks.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for cash balance discrepancy, stating the CIT(A) could not accept and reject the same explanation. For non-genuine purchases, a 12.5% disallowance was deemed just. The addition for the loan from the wife was deleted as it was based on surmise and conjecture.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act for income from house property, as the Act does not exclude any category of taxpayer from this deduction. Regarding the unutilized funds, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly confronted the assessee with the issue and remitted it back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal, considering the CBDT circulars enhancing the monetary limit for filing appeals, and noting the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as not maintainable. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application if the issue fell under the exceptions mentioned in the circular.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the addition should only be for the profit attributable to the unrecorded sale consideration, not the entire amount. This was in line with the Bombay High Court's ruling in CIT vs Hari Ram Bambani.
The Tribunal followed a previous order for the AY 2009-10 where a similar issue was decided by restricting the disallowance to 3.5% of unverifiable purchases. The Tribunal found the facts to be identical.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, agreeing that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted when the tax payable under normal provisions is less than the tax payable under Section 115JB, as per CBDT Circular No. 25/2015 and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 3% of the impugned purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, considering the assessee's gross profit rate and the evidence presented.
The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, reduced by the gross profit already declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that appeals for earlier assessment years concerning these suppliers were pending and could impact the current assessment. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal accepted the additional evidence and remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The depreciation claim on plant and machinery was also to be considered afresh by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer dismissed the assessee's explanation without proper examination or specific reasons. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided details regarding the source of the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was set aside.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not fully substantiated, the disallowance should be restricted to the extent of the profit component, considering the assessee's declared Gross Profit rate. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground regarding the validity of reopening.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied heavily on statements from hawala parties without fully verifying the assessee's documentary evidence. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition on account of bogus purchases to 12% of the disputed amount.
The Tribunal held that the case was distinguishable from the N.K. Protein Ltd. decision as the assessee had provided bank statements. Following the Simit P. Seth decision, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order which had restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal held that the decision in N.K. Protein Ltd. was not applicable as the AO did not conduct sufficient inquiries despite the assessee providing ledger accounts and bank statements. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal accepted the additional evidence and remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The depreciation claim on plant and machinery was also to be considered afresh by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to insufficient tax effect. For the assessee's appeals, one issue regarding deemed dividend was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The transfer pricing adjustment issue was also remitted to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing loan confirmations, bank statements, financials, and IT returns of the lenders. The Tribunal found the lenders to be creditworthy and the transactions genuine, thus deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground.
The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of ICS receipts should be set aside to the AO for de novo adjudication, following a previous order in the assessee's own case. Regarding the sale of software, the Tribunal held it was not royalty as it was an inseparable part of the imaging equipment, following a decision in the payer's case.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on advertisement and publicity should be considered for comparability in transfer pricing. It also restored the matter of trademark and R&D royalty to the AO/TPO for fresh determination. The brand development expenses were allowed as the payments were made pursuant to a well-defined agreement and on a cost basis.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which had considered the assessee's submissions and relevant judicial precedents. The Revenue failed to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings with evidence.
The Tribunal held that income from job work for other SEZ units cannot be considered 'export turnover' as per Section 10AA. Interest on fixed deposits was also rightly excluded from export turnover as no direct nexus with export was established.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which had considered the assessee's submissions and relevant judicial precedents. The Revenue failed to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO were bad in law because the notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective for not specifying the exact charge, thus violating principles of natural justice. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions are made on an estimated basis. Since the AO had estimated the profit element in the alleged bogus purchases, there was no conclusive proof of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the entire purchases cannot be added as income simply because the suppliers were not produced. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the addition should be restricted to the estimated gross profit on the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the entire purchases cannot be added as income simply because the suppliers were not produced. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the addition should be restricted to the estimated gross profit on the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2009-10 was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion without tangible material. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision regarding procedural technicalities in filing appeals.