Loading ITAT cases…
548 orders · Page 7 of 11
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified based on information from the Sales Tax department. It also reduced the profit addition to 5% of the alleged purchases to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made in the absence of any exempt income earned during the relevant assessment year. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowances.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was negligent in pursuing the additional claim before the lower authorities, the fresh claim and additional evidence should be admitted in the interest of justice. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication upon payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied had been deleted by a previous order, the penalty could not survive. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessees deserved an opportunity to argue their case on merits before the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to exclude certain comparables identified by the assessee, including Vishwa Vikas Services Ltd., Thirdware Solutions, M/s Kals Information Systems Ltd., and Mindtree Ltd. (segmental), and to recompute the ALP. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained because the penalty notice did not clearly specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as required by law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in the alleged bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. The Tribunal found that both the AO and assessee failed to conclusively prove their case with sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the non-genuine purchases. This was based on a similar issue in the subsequent assessment year where the CIT(A)'s order was upheld by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found contradictory findings on whether the interest was debited to the profit and loss account or solely capitalized. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after factual verification.
The Tribunal held that the commission income earned by the assessee should be treated as business income, especially since it was accepted as such in earlier years. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of ad-hoc disallowances of expenses, relying on previous judgments.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. They confirmed the 12.5% disallowance but directed that it should be reduced by the gross profit already declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was due to bonafide reasons and the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. The issue of levying fee under section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, requires consideration on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The AO had correctly applied the principles of the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investments by excluding investments yielding taxable income from the calculation of average investments.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to reduce the profit addition on non-genuine purchases to 8%. They found this estimation to be just and reasonable given the circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the Municipal Authority's valuation of the property could not be rejected without cogent reasoning, especially when the comparable properties used by the AO were commercial. The CIT(A)'s estimation was also considered baseless.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which restricted the addition to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal reasoned that since the Revenue did not doubt the assessee's sales, the addition should only be to the extent of undisclosed profits from the purchases.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS on payments to non-residents were not sustainable if the obligation to deduct tax was not in force at the time of payment, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs KPMG. However, the claim for restricting disallowances to 30% based on a retrospective amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) was rejected.
The Tribunal held that prior period adjustments should be allowed as a deduction while computing book profits under Section 115JB. This decision was based on precedents from the Bombay High Court and ITAT Hyderabad.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases, considering the assessee's gross profit rate and the fact that the AO had not issued notices to the alleged accommodation entry providers. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to be judicious and correct.
The Tribunal held that acquiescence cannot take away a party's entitlement to relief when tax is levied or collected without authority of law. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee is not includible in gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44B, following its own prior decisions and High Court rulings. Regarding prepaid taxes, the issue was set aside to the AO for reconsideration based on evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the addition on account of non-genuine purchases to 12.5% of the purchase value. The Tribunal found this estimation to be reasonable given the facts.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the penalty. The Tribunal noted that the purchases were recorded, sales were made, and the addition was based on an estimated profit element, not on concealment of income.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable as the additions on which it was based were either deleted or substantially reduced. Furthermore, the assessee provided a sufficient explanation for the remaining addition, which was accepted.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition for bogus purchases was made on an estimated basis, the penalty levied thereon would not survive. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was found to be justified.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A). It agreed that since the addition for bogus purchases was made on an estimated basis, the penalty for concealment of income would not survive.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the Revenue did not doubt the sales declared by the assessee, the entire purchases could not be held as bogus. Only the profit embedded in such sales should be brought to tax.
The ITAT noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The Revenue's representative conceded that the appeal was covered by the circular.
The Tribunal upheld the reduction made by the CIT(A), restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 8% of the value. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the assessee did not appeal the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be levied as the revised return was filed voluntarily before any detection by the Assessing Officer and the assessee had sufficient brought forward losses, rendering no malafide intention.
The Tribunal held that the MCI regulations do not govern pharmaceutical companies and therefore, the expenditure incurred by the assessee is not hit by Explanation to Section 37(1). Consequently, the disallowance of sales promotion expenses and medical conference expenses were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition of Rs. 10 lakhs was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, it was premature to decide the validity of the penalty at this stage. Therefore, the penalty would not survive at this stage.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and found that the assessee's claim regarding the non-applicability of the proviso to Section 2(15) and its eligibility for exemption under Section 10(23C) required examination. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made necessary inquiries during reassessment and accepted the assessee's explanation regarding the Section 10B deduction. The CIT failed to consider the assessee's submissions and relied on decisions that were distinguishable.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's Section 12A registration, which was cancelled, has been restored by a prior Tribunal order, the basis for denying Section 11 exemption is no longer valid. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years, where similar claims for amortization of trademark expenses under Section 35A were allowed. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO/DRP was vacated.
The Tribunal held that since sales were not doubted, 100% disallowance of bogus purchases was not justified. The addition was restricted to 12.5% of bogus purchases, further reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the settler, trustee, and beneficiary were distinct entities, and thus the assessee should be assessed as a trust. Since the income was already taxed in the hands of the beneficiary, it could not be taxed again in the hands of the trust.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming that the standard deduction under Section 24(a) is not allowable for income derived from property held for charitable purposes when computing income under Sections 11 to 13. However, it directed the AO to allow actual repairs and maintenance expenses.
The ITAT held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Tribunal followed a CBDT circular directing the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain limit.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C of the Income Tax Act was not applicable as the entire transaction was alleged to be bogus. However, since the assessee did not appeal the CIT(A)'s order, and the 23% gross profit was higher than the 12.5% profit rate consistently adopted by the Tribunal for similar businesses, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer were vacated by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had erred in invoking the proviso to Section 2(15).
The CIT(A) upheld the 12.5% profit estimation but directed the AO to reduce the gross profit already declared by the assessee from this addition. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that quantum and penalty proceedings are separate. The appeal was dismissed as it was covered by the low tax effect circular, despite the Revenue's contention about external information.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. The AO's assessment record did not indicate any exempt income earned by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A was amended prospectively from June 1, 2015, and therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS deducted prior to that date. The demand for late fees was without authority of law.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by CBDT's low tax effect circular, which enhances the monetary limit for appeals. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, primarily on the grounds that the tax effect of the disputed addition was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.