Loading ITAT cases…
481 orders · Page 7 of 10
The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees cannot be levied through an intimation under Section 200A for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A allowing this came into effect on that date. Therefore, such levies are without authority of law.
The Tribunal held that the sale proceeds should be distributed between land and superstructure, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The revenue's appeal was dismissed on this point.
The Tribunal held that the penalty for transfer pricing adjustments was not sustainable as the ITAT had previously granted relief to the assessee on this issue. The penalty for expenditure reconciliation differences was also deleted, as it was based on a technical breach and not deliberate concealment.
The Tribunal held that payment for software license is not taxable as royalty. The payment is for a product that provides certain results, not for a process or technical know-how.
The Tribunal held that the AO had no authority to levy fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy was unsustainable.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's past GP ratios and a co-ordinate bench decision, decided to estimate the GP on alleged bogus purchases at 5% over and above the GP declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed several grounds, following its own prior decisions and allowing some for statistical purposes. One ground was dismissed as not pressed, and another was remitted back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly invoked Section 263 as the AO's interpretation of Section 68 was incorrect, leading to a lower disallowance than warranted. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not make a protective assessment in the hands of the searched person when the primary trader was identified as another entity. It also found that the AO's additions regarding confiscated gold and undisclosed income were not substantiated with cogent material.
The Tribunal held that the issue of beneficial ownership was not raised before the lower authorities and that a rectification proceeding under section 154 r.w.s 200A cannot address such complex issues. Therefore, the AO's grievance was unsustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This decision was based on the low tax effect, which fell below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the profit element embedded in the alleged bogus purchases, specifically at 12.5%. It noted that both parties failed to conclusively prove their case with evidence.
The ITAT noted that the CBDT's circular revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lacs. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeal was covered by this circular.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) is not applicable as there was no extension of existing business. It was also held that the assessee had sufficient own funds exceeding CWIP, and a presumption exists that CWIP is funded by own interest-free funds unless the AO establishes a nexus with borrowed funds.
The Tribunal held that merely making a claim for an expense that is not substantiated does not automatically constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of levying penalty. The AO did not dispute the factual details of the expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy was without authority of law.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) is not applicable as there was no extension of existing business. It was also held that the assessee had sufficient own funds exceeding CWIP, and a presumption exists that CWIP is funded by own interest-free funds unless the AO establishes a nexus with borrowed funds.
The Tribunal held that in cases of bogus purchases where sales are accepted, the addition should be restricted to the difference between the Gross Profit (GP) declared on normal purchases and the GP on bogus purchases. The AO was directed to recalculate the addition accordingly.
The Tribunal held that penalty is not leviable on bogus purchases as per Gujarat High Court ruling and for other disallowances, as the assessee had disclosed transactions in its return. It was not a case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty. It found that there were justifiable reasons for the assessee's inability to furnish the required details due to the liquidation process and the takeover by another bank.
The ITAT held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The tribunal followed the CBDT circular which mandates the withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 50,00,000/- or less.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was issued during the period when the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) for regular assessment had not expired. Therefore, the reopening was invalid and the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition to the extent of 5.25% on alleged bogus purchases. Both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the issue of head office expense allocation to the AO for fresh examination, following its own precedent. Regarding comparable companies, the Tribunal upheld the exclusion of certain companies as directed by the CIT(A), citing functional dissimilarity and lack of segmental data.
The Tribunal restored the issue of head office expense allocation to the AO for fresh examination, following its own precedent. Regarding comparable companies, the Tribunal upheld the exclusion of certain companies as directed by the CIT(A), citing functional dissimilarity and lack of segmental data.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned, following the ratio of the Delhi High Court in Joint Investments vs. CIT. The AO was directed to restrict the disallowance to the exempt income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that penalty cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis, especially when the assessee offered income to buy peace and avoid litigation.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's own funds exceeded its investments and no exempt income was earned, the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified. The decision of the CIT(A) was upheld based on the facts being similar to previous favorable rulings for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below ₹.50 Lakhs and no exceptions mentioned in the CBDT circular were applicable. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal because the tax effect of the penalty was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied or the tax effect exceeded the limit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the addition was made on a hypothetical basis without appreciating the facts. The assessee was a contract manufacturer for Britannia Industry Ltd. and the excess fuel consumption was within standard norms.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that while the purchase of the laptop was not disputed, the disallowance was solely due to the absence of documentary evidence. Therefore, the particulars furnished by the assessee were not inaccurate, and it was not a case for penalty.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly appreciated the clauses of the Permanent Alternate Accommodation (PAA) agreement. It restored the matter to the AO for a fresh examination of the agreement to determine if there was a transfer of the old flat.
The Tribunal held that service tax is not liable to be included in gross receipts for the purpose of Section 44BB. The CIT(A)'s decision to exclude service tax was found to be judicious and correct.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, noting that the assessee had provided evidence of genuine transactions and payments. The AO's remand report also confirmed the genuineness of the creditors after verification.
The CIT(A) correctly restricted the addition because the assessee had explained the source of expenditure through bank statements and purchase bills, and the corresponding sales were not doubted. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the additions on which the penalty was levied had been deleted by a previous Tribunal order in the quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty order cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted due enquiry and verified the expenditures claimed by the assessee. The PCIT's allegations were found to be without basis and contrary to the records.
The Tribunal held that while additions under Section 68 were partly justified due to lack of evidence for some loans, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should be deleted for the amounts where confirmations were provided. Penalty was sustained only on the amount for which no evidence was furnished.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue regarding the unverified portion of the VRS payments. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the disputed amount.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without controverting the AO's findings. The Tribunal upheld the addition to the extent of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that interest expenditure incurred on borrowings for the purchase of stock-in-trade, even if acquired at the very end of the financial year, is allowable. It further held that expenses incurred for raising loans are revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure.
The Tribunal held that in cases of bogus purchases where sales are accepted, the addition should be restricted to the difference in the Gross Profit (GP) rate between normal purchases and bogus purchases. The AO was directed to recalculate the addition accordingly.
The Tribunal held that in cases of bogus purchases where sales are accepted, the addition should be restricted to the difference in the Gross Profit (GP) rate between genuine and bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer was directed to recalculate the addition on this basis.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the addition at 5.3% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the gross profit rate declared by the assessee. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in a group concern's case for the same assessment year, which had restricted additions for bogus purchases to 4%. Therefore, the addition in the present case was also directed to be restricted to 4%.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 6.00 lacs as accommodation entries. The assessee failed to provide any details or respond to the authorities below.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering various judicial pronouncements and the totality of facts. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals.