Loading ITAT cases…
481 orders · Page 9 of 10
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 23 of 2019. The tax effect of the contested issues was below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 15% of the bogus purchases, representing the profit element. The Tribunal reasoned that only real income is taxable and disallowed the entire transaction.
The Tribunal held that only real income is taxable, and even if transactions are not verifiable, only the taxable component, not the entire amount, should be taxed. The addition was directed to be restricted to 12.5% minus the gross profit declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that even if purchases are not fully verifiable, the revenue is entitled to tax only the income component, not the entire transaction. The CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected the assessee's books of account and made an addition on an estimated basis without providing cogent reasons. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not submit a remand report sought by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal reasoned that only the real income component should be taxed, and the AO had not rejected the assessee's sales.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The assessee was to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the issue of the source of cash deposits needs to be re-examined by the AO. The assessee claimed the deposits were from cheque discounting business with Bombay Indore Transport, but failed to provide supporting evidence like confirmations.
The Tribunal held that late fees could not be charged under Section 234E for returns filed and processed before the amendment to Section 200A on June 1, 2015, as the enabling provisions were not present. Therefore, the levy of late fees was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be charged for TDS returns filed and processed before the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which came into effect from June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that late fees could not be charged under Section 234E for returns filed and processed before the amendment to Section 200A on June 1, 2015, as the enabling provisions were not present. Therefore, the levy of late fees was incorrect.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. As the Revenue did not object, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the commission paid was an allowable deduction as it represented a shortage in realization of invoice value and was not taxable in India. Therefore, TDS was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that notional ALV on unsold properties held as stock-in-trade cannot be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property'. The Tribunal followed the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd., which favored the assessee in such cases.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. The addition should be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same level as genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently offered short-term and long-term capital gains in the past without dispute. It also noted the assessee maintained separate portfolios for speculative and investment activities and took delivery of shares, making the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Gopal Purohit applicable.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 10% of the purchases after considering documentary evidence like purchase bills, bank statements, and sales reconciliation. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance of interest, as the loan was previously held to be genuine. The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had inadvertently mentioned wrong figures in the original return and the revised return correctly rectified this mistake. The AO's remand report also supported the revised figures.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of reopening the assessment. However, it directed the AO to restrict the addition on bogus purchases to bring the gross profit rate on such purchases in line with other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that unsold stock-in-trade of a builder and developer cannot be subjected to notional rent. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision in Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd., the addition of notional rent was deleted.
The Tribunal held that crawler cranes and dozers are functionally similar to motor lorries and are eligible for higher depreciation at 30%. Registration under the Motor Vehicles Act is not mandatory for claiming higher depreciation, and the nature of the asset and its capability to be used on roads are key factors.
The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority had considered the facts correctly and saw no reason to deviate from their decision. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. The addition should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. Considering the assessee's submissions and the additions made, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that legal fees paid for filing income tax returns and representation before tax authorities are deductible if the assessee is engaged in business. It also held that proportionate interest on loans cannot be disallowed if the funds are utilized in business activities like share trading and investments.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of bogus purchases, reduced by the gross profit already declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s approach of disallowing interest and under Section 14A due to intermingled funds was not in consonance with High Court decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted these issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found the reasons for the ex-parte orders to be beyond the assessee's control. In the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the lack of opposition from the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee is taxable as business income under Section 28(va) and not capital gains. It also directed a 0.5% disallowance under Section 14A to meet ends of justice and set aside the addition to book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that mere technical lapses should not deprive the assessee of justice. The assessee was directed to e-file the appeal before the first appellate authority within 10 days.
The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee is taxable as business income under Section 28(va) and not capital gains. It also directed a 0.5% disallowance under Section 14A to meet ends of justice and set aside the addition to book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels, the failure to produce the supplier meant the onus remained undischarged. Therefore, estimation of income against suspicious purchases was justified.
The Tribunal held that carriage fees do not fall under the definition of royalty, and therefore, tax deduction under Section 194J was not required. Even if there was a short deduction, Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance is not applicable in cases of genuine expenditure with a difference of opinion on TDS provisions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain an 8% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance is not justified, and 8% disallowance meets the ends of justice.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which had considered the evidence and submissions. The revenue failed to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings with evidence.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. The profit element in such purchases should be limited to the gross profit rate of genuine purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain 8% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance is not justified, and 8% strikes a balance given the circumstances of grey market purchases.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Since the issue was penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and no exceptions applied, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which had considered the evidence and submissions. The revenue failed to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings with evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the commission at 0.6% of the sales, noting that the AO's own observation indicated a range of 0.5% to 3% for such commissions.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. The addition should be restricted to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on bogus purchases to the same level as genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee possessed primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels, they failed to produce suppliers to confirm transactions. Therefore, estimation of income against suspicious purchases was justified.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because the AO failed to specify the charge (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) on which the penalty was proposed. This deprived the assessee of its legal right to respond to the specific charge, rendering the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was not justified, following the Bombay High Court's decision in M/s. Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. The court found that the reasons recorded did not establish a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment, but rather a 'reason to suspect'.