Loading ITAT cases…
481 orders · Page 8 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 18% of bogus purchases, finding no infirmity in the order. The AO's addition was based on accommodation entries without physical delivery of goods.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed, especially since the AO did not dispute the assessee's sales.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that restricting the addition by applying a Gross Profit (GP) rate of 2.5% and further reducing it by the GP already declared by the assessee was reasonable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that restricting the addition by applying a Gross Profit (GP) rate of 2.5% and further reducing it by the GP already declared by the assessee was reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the AO had accepted the assessee's valuation method, which was consistent with previous years and supported by evidence. Therefore, the PCIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for the bogus purchases issue and remanded it to the AO for fresh adjudication. However, the disallowance for cash payments under Section 40A(3) was upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the AO/TPO/DRP on account of interest-free loans to AEs was without basis. It noted that the AO applied Rule 8D without recording any satisfaction regarding the expenditure relatable to exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the claim for set-off of brought forward losses is covered in favour of the assessee based on previous High Court decisions. The issue of newspaper income was remitted back to the AO for assessment as business income, and rental income was allowed for exemption as application of income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, even if claimed under Section 54F, as the property was residential. The failure to disclose capital gains in the original return does not disentitle the assessee to statutory deductions.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. It directed the AO to consider the evidence filed by the assessee to demonstrate that the payment was a cost-to-cost reimbursement and not FTS or royalty.
The Tribunal held that the set-off of brought forward business loss is permissible, referencing previous Tribunal and High Court orders. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for quantification, not for re-adjudication of allowability.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not specify the limb under which the penalty was being levied (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). This failure to specify, coupled with the use of a standard proforma notice without striking out irrelevant clauses, indicated a non-application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was purely on an ad-hoc/estimate basis without any nexus with incriminating material. Statements recorded under section 132(4) which were subsequently retracted, without corroborative evidence, cannot form the basis for such an addition.
The Tribunal held that if a property was let out previously and remained vacant for the entire year (without self-occupation), its annual value should be computed under Section 23(1)(c) as Nil. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to prove the genuineness of the purchase transactions.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below took a hyper-technical view by disbelieving the assessee's explanation of a mistake in the e-filing and disregarding evidence from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website. The penalty was deleted as the assessee's conduct was not contumacious.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed the ratio of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court and Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including ledger accounts, bills, and bank statements. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining these evidences.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth. The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for the preceding assessment year was decided in favor of the assessee. Therefore, this issue was remitted back to the DRP for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that substance prevails over form and book entries are not determinative. The explanation of embezzlement loss was not doubted. Therefore, disallowing the claim based on the nomenclature used in the books was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that only real income is taxable and that in cases of unverifiable transactions, a reasonable percentage of such purchases can be disallowed to meet the ends of justice. It noted that the assessee's proposed profit rate would become unrealistic if the entire addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that mere technical lapses should not deprive the assessee of justice, especially when the appeal has since been filed electronically. The CIT(A) was directed to admit the appeal and adjudicate it on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO failed to bring any cogent material to rebut the assessee's evidence or conduct further inquiries.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. The revenue failed to rebut the findings and observations of the CIT(A) with evidence.
The Tribunal found the explanation plausible, considering the amount per lady was reasonable and aligned with Indian traditions. The addition made by the AO was set aside.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, upholding the restriction of disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on doubts without independent inquiry or corroborative material. The assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence, including IT returns, financial statements, and bank statements of the lenders, to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in partially disbelieving the loans from close relatives and directed deletion of additions related to them. However, issues regarding loans from a deceased individual and a company were restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a cash loan from a partner to a firm does not attract Section 269SS as they are not considered separate entities. Furthermore, the Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the violation due to business exigencies, protecting the assessee under Section 273B.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the assessee's submission that advances were made to secure future supplies, with purchases occurring in the subsequent year. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The ITAT noted that the assessee provided details of payments made to M/s. Tirupati Associates, who allegedly paid the commission to middlemen. The Tribunal found that revenue authorities should make inquiries when such details are provided and cannot reject submissions outright. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the investor entities. The revenue failed to provide contrary material.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the AO had not made sufficient inquiry into the nature of the income. However, the PCIT should not have decided the issue on merits and should have directed the AO to conduct further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels, they failed to produce suppliers for confirmation. The estimation of 12.5% profit by the CIT(A) was considered fair and reasonable given the nature of the business.
The Tribunal held that late fees could not be charged under Section 234E for returns filed and processed before the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which came into effect from June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 15% of the bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for purchases is not justified, as purchases are necessary for sales.
The Tribunal held that while the reopening was justified, a 100% disallowance of purchases was not appropriate as the assessee's books of account and sales were not disputed. A reasonable percentage of disallowance would meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable, citing CBDT circulars that set higher monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue was allowed to file a miscellaneous application if the issue fell under specific exceptions.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the assessment year. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that crawler cranes and dozers are motor vehicles eligible for higher depreciation at 30%. Registration under the Motor Vehicles Act is not mandatory for claiming this higher depreciation.
The Tribunal held that commission expenses cannot be disallowed solely on the ground that details of suppliers introduced could not be provided, especially when TDS was deducted and payments were made by cheque, and the recipients declared the income. The AO did not provide evidence of the money returning to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels, the failure to produce suppliers to confirm transactions meant the onus was not discharged. However, considering the low-margin nature of the business and the existing gross profit, the addition was reduced on an estimated basis.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals due to the significant delay in filing and the lack of any application for condonation of delay by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that once the addition, on which penalty was levied, was reduced to 30% on an estimated basis by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases by producing suppliers, the addition should be restricted to the profit element embedded in the transactions, not the entire purchase amount.
The Tribunal upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases. The Ld.CIT(A) reasoned that since sales were not disputed and payments were made by cheque, it was a case of purchasing from bogus parties rather than entirely bogus purchases.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention regarding the low tax effect. Following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for non-appearance before the CIT(A) to be bonafide. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) to provide another opportunity for hearing.