Loading ITAT cases…
481 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the CIT-A's decision to sustain only 13.47% disallowance on bogus purchases. They reasoned that 100% disallowance is not permissible when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. However, they acknowledged that purchases from the grey market involve tax savings at the expense of the exchequer, making the 13.47% disallowance meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that 100% disallowance is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. However, purchases from the grey market warrant some disallowance.
The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases cannot be made when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without actual purchases. However, given the purchases were from the grey market, a disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchase would meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal, following its own earlier decisions for similar assessment years, set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to re-examine the nature of the transaction (discount vs. commission) based on agreements and other relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that an addition made on an ad-hoc estimation of profit on unverified purchases does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO failed to prove that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars or how the penalty provisions could be invoked.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable, citing CBDT circulars that enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue was allowed to file a miscellaneous application if the issue fell under exceptions.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(b)(iv) applies to all interest payments to partners exceeding 12% per annum, including interest on loans, as per the partnership deed. Therefore, the disallowance was justified.
The Tribunal held that while the profit element on bogus purchases is taxable, neither party conclusively proved their case with evidence. The AO failed to complete investigations, and the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was unjustified. It reasoned that the disallowance was based on an estimate, the assessee provided necessary documentary evidence, and the inability to produce concerned parties did not amount to contumacious conduct warranting a penalty.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions and the explanation for absence before the CIT(A). It was held that remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration would serve the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT correctly invoked section 263 because the AO's failure to apply or even examine section 184(5) when completing the assessment under section 144 made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order to revise the assessment.
The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance on bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. However, purchases from the grey market embed a profit element.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of bogus purchases, reduced by the gross profit already declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee, following its own previous orders and the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to conclusively prove the genuineness of purchases and the AO failed to conduct thorough investigations, a reasonable profit element should be taxed on alleged bogus purchases. The AO's estimation of 100% addition was considered excessive.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in allowing the Section 10AA deduction based on earlier years' consistent rulings and judicial precedents. The transfer pricing adjustments were also not interfered with.
The Tribunal held that an unsubstantiated claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The addition was made on an estimated basis without proving the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. However, the disallowance should be restricted to the profit element embedded in such purchases.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. Following precedent, the disallowance was restricted to 2% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that since the parties who undertook the renovation work responded to the Assessing Officer's notice and were considered genuine by the CIT(A) in part, there was no reason to treat other responding parties as non-genuine. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. This decision was based on various precedents, including Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts and the estimation of 8% net profit on turnover, finding it reasonable given the assessee's lack of cooperation and evidence. The disallowance was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal, following its own previous orders and the CIT(A)'s decision, held that the disallowance under Section 14A while computing book profits under Section 115JB should be restricted to ₹.2,40,000/-.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels, the failure to substantiate material delivery and produce suppliers meant the onus remained undischarged. Therefore, estimation of income against suspicious purchases was justified.
The Tribunal held that while primary purchase documents and banking channel payments were present, the failure to substantiate delivery and produce the supplier meant the onus on the assessee remained undischarged. Therefore, estimation of income against suspicious purchases was justified.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee provided purchase documents and made payments through banking channels, they failed to substantiate material delivery or produce suppliers. Therefore, estimation of income on suspicious purchases was justified.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of non-genuine purchases based on the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the revenue failed to rebut the findings with evidence. The disallowance of 5% of purchases was sustained.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the revenue failed to rebut the findings with evidence. The disallowance of 5% of purchases was sustained.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who had elaborately considered the submissions and various decisions. The revenue failed to rebut the findings of the CIT(A) with evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT-A's decision to sustain only a 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance is not justified, as sales require actual purchases. However, purchases from the grey market warrant some disallowance.