Loading ITAT cases…
548 orders · Page 10 of 11
The Tribunal held that AMP expenses incurred by the assessee do not constitute an international transaction in the absence of an explicit arrangement between the assessee and its AE. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's margins were higher than comparables after including these costs.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the expenditure incurred for increasing the authorized share capital. It reasoned that such expenditure is capital in nature as it expands the capital base of the company, citing Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148 was bad in law. This was because the reopening occurred more than four years after the original assessment, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The issue of professional fees had already been examined by the AO during the original assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, finding that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The addition was considered to represent the profit element embedded in such purchases.
The Tribunal held that since no application for condonation of delay was filed explaining sufficient cause, the appeal could not be admitted. The non-appearance further suggested a lack of interest from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) should only be made in respect of investments that have yielded exempt income. Investments yielding no exempt income should be excluded.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable, citing CBDT circulars that set higher monetary limits for appeals. The Tribunal also kept open the option for the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application if the issues fell under specific exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 when proceedings under Section 153A/153C were applicable due to a search. The reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 were therefore invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limits specified in CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, as the tax effect did not exceed the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal restored the issue of notional interest on receivables to the AO for fresh adjudication, following its prior order for AY 2009-10. Other grounds concerning MAT credit, TDS/TCS credit, interest under sections 234B/234C, and interest under section 244A were also restored to the AO for verification and recomputation.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be given for the assessment year in which the income is assessable, as per Rule 37BA(3)(i). Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the TDS credit in AY 2015-16.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of penalty, holding that the assessee's mistake was inadvertent and rectified promptly upon inquiry. The penalty was not sustainable as there was no deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission that liberty be granted to seek recall of dismissal if exceptions are found. However, based on the current tax effect, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the goods were consumed or sold, only the profit element should be taxed. Given the documentary evidence and the fact that goods were purchased from the grey market, a disallowance of 8% on the total purchase value from these parties would meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that while additions were made in quantum proceedings, penalty proceedings are separate. The assessee's conduct was not found to be contumacious, and therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the method of valuing closing stock cannot be changed by tax authorities if consistently followed by the assessee. The AO did not provide sufficient reasoning to dispute the assessee's valuation method, and the addition was considered tax-neutral as closing stock becomes opening stock in the next year.
The Tribunal held that the rental income derived from letting out property, when it forms part of complex commercial activities as per the assessee's objects, is to be treated as business income. This decision was based on previous rulings of the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court.
The Tribunal restored the issue of notional interest on receivables to the AO for fresh adjudication, following its prior order for AY 2009-10. Other grounds concerning MAT credit, TDS/TCS credit, interest under sections 234B/234C, and interest under section 244A were also restored to the AO for verification and recomputation.
The Tribunal held that the quality specifications for export products can differ from domestic sales, and the TPO did not sufficiently verify these specifications. It also accepted that expenses incurred via a director's credit card for entertaining foreign clients are legitimate business expenses.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the AO, finding that the CIT(A) was justified in accepting additional evidence and holding that the rejection of books of accounts by the AO was incorrect. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to allow carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. This was based on the principle that only the profit component of unverified transactions should be taxed, and a previous appeal by the assessee on the same issue for the same assessment year had also upheld this view.
The Tribunal held that the SLP against the relied-upon High Court decision had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order, which followed the binding precedent, was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the original quantum assessment order was quashed, the penalty arising from it would not survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in revising the assessment order. The deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was allowable, and the calculation of Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) by the Pr.CIT was based on an incorrect working of 'adjusted total income'.
The Tribunal held that club membership fees, even if permanent, do not create a capital asset or provide an enduring benefit. The expenditure is for utilizing facilities to run the business and produce profit, thus it is a revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of 12.5% on bogus purchases. It found that while the assessee provided purchase invoices and proof of payment, it failed to substantiate delivery or produce suppliers, indicating a profit element in the transactions.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was because the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeals ex-parte without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the purchases. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, especially since the assessee had not appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that expenses relatable to exempt dividend income are to be disallowed, even if the investment was strategic. The CIT(A) rightly restricted the disallowance to the amount of exempt income.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The dismissal was based on the CBDT's circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lacs, and also on merits regarding penalty on estimated disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest paid to related parties was unjustified as the revenue failed to provide comparable instances to prove the excessiveness of the 15% interest rate. However, the disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds against interest earned from other parties was upheld due to the assessee's failure to establish a direct nexus between the borrowed funds and the loans given.
The Tribunal held that the issues were covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. The facts for the current assessment years were identical.
The Tribunal agreed that the purchases were not genuine but held that the addition should be restricted to the profit element. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition by bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on bogus purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was within its rights to set off interest received on income tax refund against interest paid. The Pr. CIT had exceeded his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view based on binding judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections before completing the reassessment, which is a procedural lapse. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that reverse indexation is not a statutory method and rejected the assessee's claim. However, it allowed the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A r/w Rule 8D, finding that the AO did not establish a nexus between expenditure and exempt income.
The Tribunal heard the submissions and considered the assessee's letter requesting withdrawal. The appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the merits of the case after deciding the validity of reopening. The issue of merits was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. The addition should be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same level as that of other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate 5% of the purchases as profit, finding it fair and reasonable given the assessee's failure to substantiate the purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate 5% of the purchases as profit, finding it fair and reasonable given the assessee's failure to substantiate the purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only a 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It was reasoned that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance is not justified, but purchases from the grey market warrant some disallowance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT-A's decision to sustain only 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that 100% disallowance is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases.
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, but purchases from the grey market warrant some disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred by not disposing of the assessee's objections to the reopening notice with a speaking order, as mandated by Supreme Court decisions. The reassessment proceedings were therefore vitiated.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT-A's order, stating that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a 12.5% disallowance meets the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases could not be fully substantiated, the profit element embedded in the transactions should be taxed. The additions were further restricted to 2% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the nature of the business and the assessee's low profit margin.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases could not be fully substantiated, the profit element embedded in the transactions should be taxed. The additions were further restricted to 2% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the nature of the business and the assessee's low profit margin.