Loading ITAT cases…
481 orders · Page 3 of 10
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for Courtyard Kakkanad Phase-I was justified due to violations of Section 80IB(10)(c). However, it directed proportionate disallowance based on flats exceeding the area limit, remanding the matter for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for Courtyard Kakkanad Phase-I was justified due to violations of Section 80IB(10)(c). However, it directed proportionate disallowance based on flats exceeding the area limit, remanding the matter for fresh computation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the AO had not applied his own mind and had acted solely on audit objections, especially after having previously disagreed with them.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn. This was due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for filing appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had complied with the previous ITAT directions to allow cross-examination of Shri Mukesh Choksi. This violation of judicial discipline led the Tribunal to delete the additions made.
The Tribunal held that penalty is not sustainable when income is determined on an estimation basis. The issue of commission on hawala bills was also set aside and remanded, meaning no demand existed on that count.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 8.5% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted documentary evidence and payments were made through account payee cheques.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit embedded in the alleged purchases at 12.5%, finding the assessee's submissions and the CIT(A)'s reasoning to be justifiable. The Revenue could not disprove the factual aspects noted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition of profit on bogus purchases to 12.5%, finding it fair and reasonable in light of the facts and similar High Court judgments.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 8.5% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted documentary evidence and payments were made through account payee cheques.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal regarding the denial of exemption under Section 11(2) was partly allowed, while the Revenue's appeal challenging exemption under Section 10(23EA) was dismissed, as it was covered by a High Court decision.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 16% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted documentary evidence and that the CIT(A) had rightly applied the profit rate.
The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had complied with the previous ITAT directions to allow cross-examination of Shri Mukesh Choksi. This violation of judicial discipline led the Tribunal to delete the additions made.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision in the assessee's case for an earlier assessment year with similar facts, deleted the entire addition made on account of bogus purchases. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing sufficient evidence of genuine transactions.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases, citing the precedent in CIT vs. Simit P. Seth. The Tribunal found that the revenue could not dislodge the factual aspects noted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had already examined the issues and accepted the assessee's explanations with supporting documents. Therefore, the Principal CIT's revision order was not sustainable as it amounted to re-examining an already considered matter.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that since the liability was discharged subsequently after obtaining RBI permission, no benefit accrued to the assessee under Section 28(iv). The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 10,00,000 cash was received by the assessee from his brother for safe custody, and the investment in paintings was evidenced and made in a prior assessment year. Therefore, the additions were not justified.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 12.5% on bogus purchases, finding it to be in line with judicial precedents. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A, as amended to allow levy of fees under Section 234E, was effective prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing depreciation on the portion of the property used for business. The assessee's plea to modify the order for depreciation on the rented portion was not considered as the assessee was not in appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued without striking off the irrelevant limb is bad in law, as it deprives the assessee of a proper opportunity to respond. Consequently, the penalty order cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in reducing the club house expenses from WIP as the assessee admitted it was not chargeable. For the bungalow repurchase, the assessee failed to prove that the entire purchase value was offered as income in an earlier year.
The Tribunal held that the issue of AMP expenses needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer (AO) in light of High Court rulings. Regarding royalty payments, the Tribunal found that since the TPO made no adjustment, the AO could not disallow the expense under Section 37(1) and remitted the issue for fresh consideration. The disallowance of liaison office expenses was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. This was based on the reasoning that since the assessee's sales were not doubted, the profit element embedded in the unproved purchases could be estimated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had already offered a portion of the amount to tax in a subsequent year and that the remaining issue was a matter of reconciliation, not concealment of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, finding it to be a reasonable estimation to meet the ends of justice. The Revenue failed to disprove the factual aspects noted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for Courtyard Kakkanad Phase-I was justified due to violations of Section 80IB(10)(c). However, it directed proportionate disallowance based on flats exceeding the area limit, remanding the matter for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee couldn't prove the source of purchases, the sales effected by the assessee were not doubted. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in the non-genuine purchases should be added to income.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. This decision followed a consistent view taken by coordinate benches in the assessee's own cases for previous assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable and the Revenue was allowed to withdraw it.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee couldn't fully prove the genuineness of purchases, the sales were not doubted. Following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of a claim, which is reflected in the return, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the penalty was deemed not leviable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal, finding that the assessee's conduct in not presenting correct facts and the inordinate delay of 848 days were not justifiable for condonation.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, while potentially erroneous, was not prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the facts. Therefore, the twin conditions for revision under section 263 were not met.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when the income of the assessee is estimated. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was justified.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to substantiate their claims, and an adequate opportunity of being heard was to be provided.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance under Section 14A. This recomputation should exclude investments that did not yield exempt income during the year and also exclude investments made in the partnership firm.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 1,68,000 as notional income from the property, noting the assessee's agreement to its determination. The addition of Rs. 1,16,500 was also sustained due to the lack of explanation from the assessee regarding amounts reflected in Form 26AS.
The Tribunal found the profit rate of 25% confirmed by the CIT(A) to be on the higher side. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5% on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted the AO's inadvertent errors in recording the total income and directed the AO to adopt the correct figures. The grounds challenging the disallowance of interest and charging of interest were not pressed by the assessee due to no tax effect.
The Tribunal noted the AO's inadvertent errors in recording the total income and directed the AO to adopt the correct figures. The grounds challenging the disallowance of interest and charging of interest were not pressed by the assessee due to no tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law as it was passed beyond the prescribed time limit. This was based on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. ICICI Bank Ltd., which states that the limitation period for Section 263 runs from the original assessment order if the issue was covered therein and not part of a reassessment.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the necessary details had been furnished to the AO and no further additions were made. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The ITAT noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeal was covered by the circular.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which restricted the addition on account of bogus purchases to 8% of the total alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision as it followed a previous decision in the assessee's individual case.