Loading ITAT cases…
481 orders · Page 4 of 10
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 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 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 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 held that the assessee did not have a permanent establishment in India as the total number of days spent by its employees providing services in India was only 21 days, which is less than the 90-day threshold stipulated in the India-UK Tax Treaty.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E and the amendment to Section 200A came into effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, no fee under Section 234E was leviable for TDS deducted prior to this date.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals as per the latest CBDT circular. The Revenue's representative could not point out any exception.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect of the penalty was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circulars apply to each proceeding separately, and no exception was provided for penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was done after four years without fulfilling the conditions of the first proviso to Section 147, and the AO relied on 'borrowed satisfaction'. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, and the addition on merits was also unsustainable due to lack of further verification and denial of cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was invalid because the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were not supplied to the assessee until the appeal proceedings before the Tribunal, despite repeated requests. Relying on High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the additions to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering that sales were not disputed and purchases were necessary for sales. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) is invalid and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the authorities' approach of disallowing the rent payment while accepting the rental income was contradictory, especially since the transaction was admittedly tax-neutral. The disallowance was based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which restricted the addition to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal reasoned that since the assessee's sales were not disputed, the entire purchase amount could not be added back, and the CIT(A)'s reduction was fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), agreeing that the profit rate of 12.5% was appropriate and that the declared profit should be set off against the addition. The revenue could not controvert these findings.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including DSIR registration and recognition certificates, which were not available earlier. The issue was set aside to the AO to decide afresh after considering these new evidences.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which restricted the addition to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal reasoned that since the assessee's sales were not disputed, the entire purchase amount could not be added back, and the CIT(A)'s reduction was fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that additions in reassessment proceedings are limited to the reasons for which the assessment was reopened. The Assessing Officer cannot make additions on other issues that come to notice during reassessment if the original reason for reopening is not addressed.
The Tribunal restored the issue of incorrect assessment as a firm to the AO for verification. It deleted the addition for unexplained investments, noting the business was old and assets were fully depreciated. The addition for estimated income from the dance bar was also deleted as it was based on conjecture without concrete evidence.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was applicable from April 1, 2014. Since the agreement date was March 28, 2013, which falls in the previous year relevant to AY 2013-14, the provision was not applicable. The date of the agreement is considered the date of transfer for this purpose.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the additions to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering that sales were not disputed and purchases were necessary for sales. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly admitted additional evidence and found no prejudice to the Revenue. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding disallowance under Section 14A, as the assessee had not claimed any expenditure. The matter was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable on ad-hoc disallowances or estimated additions. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be estimated at 10% of exempt income, as Rule 8D was not applicable. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat long-term capital gains as capital gains, but agreed with the CIT(A) that short-term capital gains should be treated as business income due to frequent trading and short holding periods.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was issued in a standardized format without specifying the charge, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained.
The Tribunal directed the AO to decide the issue of bogus purchases in terms of the Bombay High Court's decision in PCIT Vs M/S Mohommad Haji Adam & Co., applying the percentage to bogus purchases after deducting the assessee's gross profit rate. The assessee's ground regarding adjustment against work-in-progress was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has not earned any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the mere acceptance of a disallowance does not automatically make the assessee liable for penalty. The Tribunal was not convinced that the facts and circumstances warranted the imposition of penalty.
The Tribunal held that the AO's transfer pricing adjustments were not justified, following its own previous orders and judicial pronouncements. It also directed that disallowance under Section 14A be restricted to 5% of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the AO's transfer pricing adjustments were not justified, following its own previous orders and judicial pronouncements. It also directed that disallowance under Section 14A be restricted to 5% of exempt income.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side for the nature of the business. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5% on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record his satisfaction regarding the assessee's claim that no expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A could not be sustained.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. Since the subsequent electronic appeal was decided in favour of the assessee, the current appeal was no longer necessary.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond their control. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side for the nature of the business. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5% on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal noted that payments were made by cheque and relied on a Gujarat High Court judgment that estimated a similar disallowance.
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, finding that the assessee had submitted various evidences and the AO had not disproved them. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of penalty, stating the issue was covered by a previous decision.
The Tribunal held that the bad debts written off were genuine as the revenue earned from these entities had been offered to tax and accepted by the revenue. The decision of the Supreme Court in T.R.F. Ltd. was followed, stating that once debts are written off, it's sufficient without proving they became bad in the year.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side for the nature of the business. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5% on the unproved purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO's transfer pricing adjustments were not justified, following its own previous orders and judicial pronouncements. It also directed that disallowance under Section 14A be restricted to 5% of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the TPO is mandated to determine the ALP by following one of the methods prescribed under Section 92C of the Income Tax Act. Since the TPO failed to follow any prescribed method, the order of the DRP/TPO was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the payments for consultancy services were not taxable in India as they did not make available technical knowledge or skills to the assessee, as required by the India-US DTAA. Therefore, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal found that 12.5% profit on bogus purchases was excessive for the assessee's trade. It held that a profit rate of 4% would be reasonable, considering the typical GP rate in the trade and potential savings from grey market purchases.
The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases, considering the assessee's submissions and for consistency with previous orders. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to dislodge the factual aspects noted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the assessee's sales were not disputed, the entire purchase amount could not be added back. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach of restricting the addition to the difference in GP rates to be fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, finding that the Revenue could not dislodge the factual aspects noted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, finding that the assessee had provided documentary evidence and the revenue could not dislodge the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A. Following previous decisions, the additional disallowances made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the TPO's directions to the extent practically possible given the nature of its trade. The failure to provide all requested details was considered to be backed by a reasonable cause, making Section 273B applicable.