Loading ITAT cases…
548 orders · Page 6 of 11
The Tribunal held that while purchases were unverifiable, the revenue is entitled to tax the real income component, not the entire transaction. Considering the assessee's net profit margins and similar cases, the disallowance was restricted.
The Tribunal held that the original order contained inadvertent typographical errors. These errors have been corrected to accurately reflect the intended meaning and factual position as per the corrigendum.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable, considering the tax effect was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT. The Tribunal also kept open the option for the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application if the issue fell under specific exceptions.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to reduce the disallowance on non-genuine purchases to 12.5%. This was considered fair and reasonable given the circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee is integrally connected with the transfer of his old flat for re-development and thus, has to be treated as income under the head 'Capital Gain'. The alternative claim of capital receipt was not deliberated upon as the primary claim was accepted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexation from the date of initial investment, as physical possession is not necessary for claiming indexation on capital assets. The AO was directed to grant the benefit as per the payment schedule.
The Tribunal held that club membership fees are allowable as revenue expenditure, citing various High Court judgments. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to adjust brought forward long-term capital loss against short-term capital gains before adjusting against long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in applying the 'benefit test' to determine the arm's length price of royalty payments and marketing support services, as this is not within the TPO's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the TPO failed to apply any of the prescribed methods for determining arm's length price.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) by following its own decision in earlier years, citing sufficient interest-free funds. Grounds related to interest under Sections 244A and 234D were restored to the Assessing Officer for recomputation. The addition to book profit under Section 115JB was also directed to be recomputed based on Special Bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is confined to the computation of total income under Chapter IV of the Act and cannot be extended to Section 115JB (MAT provisions). Therefore, no addition is required under Section 14A for MAT purposes.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 8% of non-genuine purchases to be reasonable, considering the nature of the business and the facts of the case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow set-off of the gross profit already shown by the assessee against the estimated profit. This is because the assessee had already included the purchases and offered the profit derived from them.
The Tribunal held that depreciation and expenses on a car are allowable even if registered in the director's name, provided the car is used for business purposes and the expenses are evidenced. The Tribunal followed previous decisions of the ITAT and High Courts on this matter.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made necessary enquiries and applied his mind to the materials on record, including obtaining confirmation from the selling dealer. Therefore, the PCIT's order under section 263 was not valid.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, restricted the addition to 6% of the bogus purchase amount. This was done to account for a reasonable profit on such purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided details of the expenditure and the parties involved, and the explanation of non-recoverability should be accepted. Following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition for jewellery sourced from purchased diamonds and jewellery belonging to NRI son and daughter-in-law, finding sufficient evidence. For the remaining jewellery, it upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of 50% of the value as explained by withdrawals.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the penalty. The amount in question was not claimed as expenditure and did not affect the total income computation for the year. The assessee also reduced the WIP in the subsequent year, proving bona fides.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim of not making the disputed purchases, but the AO failed to provide any report, leading the CIT(A) to accept the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that interest income from securities does not have a direct nexus with the business of electricity generation and therefore, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. Consequently, such income is to be taxed under the head 'Income from other sources'.
The Tribunal held that rules are meant to facilitate assessees and should not deprive them of their right to be heard. The CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal on a technicality without considering its merit.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. It modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing that disallowance should be made at 5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. It modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing that disallowance should be made at 5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. It modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing that disallowance should be made at 5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases cannot be made when sales are not doubted. It directed that the disallowance should be restricted to 5% of the bogus purchases to serve the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the demand for fee under Section 234E was without authority of law as the amendment to Section 200A, which allows for computation of such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015, and the TDS in question was deducted prior to that date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54F needs to be adjudicated, as the decision in Goetze (I) Ltd. does not preclude the ITAT from entertaining such grounds. The issue of disallowance on account of gold sale was also to be reconsidered.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be filed before the ITAT. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. It modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing that disallowance should be made at 5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal restored the issue of ALP of royalty to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh adjudication, following a previous order. The issue of sales tax refund was also restored for de novo adjudication due to lack of proper consideration of evidence.
The ITAT held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The tribunal followed a CBDT circular directing withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal held that an employer-employee relationship is a prerequisite for levying FBT. Since partners of a firm cannot be considered employees, expenses incurred for them are not liable for FBT.
The Tribunal held that 'Agrima Consultants Ltd' was not a comparable company due to functional dissimilarities and fluctuating profit margins. Consequently, the TPO was directed to exclude this comparable and recompute the Arm's Length Price (ALP) based on the remaining comparables.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reasoning was flawed as the proprietary concern had raised loans prior to 2012-13. The matter was restored to the AO to verify the actual source of the loan to the wife and determine if sufficient interest-free funds were available.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance on bogus purchases to 12.5% as the goods were consumed. It also upheld the deletion of the disallowance on employee advances written off as a business loss.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A). The penalty was deleted because the addition on which it was based was made on an estimated basis.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the case ex-parte and in breach of the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and restored the issue to the AO. The AO is directed to make an addition only to the extent that the Gross Profit (GP) on these purchases is lower than the GP on undisputed purchases.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the case ex-parte and in breach of the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E could not be levied for the period of delay pertaining to April and May 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A came into effect from June 1, 2015. However, the fee is leviable from June 2015 onwards.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit element on alleged bogus purchases at 8%. It noted that while the assessee failed to conclusively prove purchases, the AO also relied solely on third-party information without further investigation.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. They modified the CIT(A)'s order to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of bogus purchases, reduced by the gross profit rate already offered by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied for concealment of income when the assessee had voluntarily disclosed all facts and acted on a bonafide belief. The agreement to the quantum addition does not automatically warrant a penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in distinguishing jurisdictional High Court decisions regarding interest-free funds. The Tribunal also held that the AO's ad-hoc disallowance of expenses for personal use was unsustainable without specific evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. Since the AO failed to record such satisfaction, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted.
The Tribunal held that while the AO's addition of profit on alleged bogus purchases was justified, the estimated profit rate should be reduced from 12.5% to 3%, following previous judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable under Section 271(1)(c) on estimated additions made in the assessment order. The lower authorities' decisions were upheld.
The Tribunal held that a return filed under Section 153A should be treated as a return filed under Section 139 for assessment purposes. It further held that the revenue had not brought any material to justify the levy of penalty, and thus, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. The addition should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases.