Loading ITAT cases…
493 orders · Page 8 of 10
The Tribunal held that penalty is not leviable on additions based on estimations, and the assessee's acceptance of the addition does not automatically warrant penalty proceedings. The quantum of penalty was also very low.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) should verify the genuineness of the trust and its activities based on the trust deed and available information, without delving into the assessment stage details. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence without allowing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to verify it, thereby violating Rule 46A. The impugned order was set aside and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. It found that while the assessee provided some evidence, neither party fully proved their case, and the AO relied solely on third-party information.
The Tribunal held that the existence and recognition of the R&D facility by the competent authority is crucial for claiming weighted deduction. Since the facility was recognized and the application for approval was filed, the deduction should be allowed even if Form 3CM was not explicitly obtained for the specific assessment year.
The Tribunal held that re-opening of assessment under Section 147 is for escapement of income, not to confer a benefit the assessee voluntarily did not avail. Since the assessee's income did not escape assessment and the AO ultimately determined the same income, the re-opening was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the mesne profit received by the assessee is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. This decision followed a Special Bench ruling of the Tribunal, which was upheld by the Bombay High Court.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-appearance was due to reasonable grounds as notices were sent to a changed address. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge his onus as he was unsure of the specific charge for penalty initiation and levied it based on Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c), which is not applicable for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty order was not passed after due application of mind.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalties. It was held that no penalty is attracted when additions/disallowances are deleted or set aside, or when the Assessing Officer himself did not impose penalties on similar additions in earlier years.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a partial disallowance is appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of shares and receipt of consideration amounted to extinguishment of rights, constituting a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the capital loss claimed by the assessee was allowable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 6.5% of the bogus purchases, considering it as the profit element. This decision was based on consistency with previous orders and judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal upheld the 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases but directed that it be reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee to avoid double jeopardy. Additionally, an ad-hoc disallowance for expenses lacking full vouchers was restricted to 5% of the expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, finding it a fair and reasonable estimation of profit. The AO's original addition of 100% was deemed to be a presumption without specific findings.
The Tribunal upheld the 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases but directed that it be reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee to avoid double jeopardy. Additionally, an ad-hoc disallowance for expenses lacking full vouchers was restricted to 5% of the expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the documents submitted by the assessee regarding the business purpose of the advances were crucial. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering these evidences.
The Tribunal held that the non-disposal of objections to reopening by the AO through a speaking order is fatal to the reassessment, rendering it bad in law. This procedural defect cannot be cured by remitting the matter back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove that the additions were based on any incriminating material. The CIT(A)'s hypothesis of connected material was considered a conjecture and insufficient for jurisdiction under Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had decided the issue of jurisdiction in favor of the assessee and the Revenue had not challenged this specific finding in its appeal, the grounds raised on merits were of academic interest. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte due to non-appearance without deciding on the merits. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merit after providing a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a disallowance that accounts for the gross profit already declared serves the interest of justice.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 6.5% of the bogus purchases, considering it as the profit element. This decision was based on consistency with previous orders and judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the CBDT circulars that set enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals, and the tax effect in this case fell below those limits.
The tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and decided to dismiss the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's conduct was not contumacious and the error was inadvertent. Relying on precedents, it was found that a technical and venial breach does not warrant penalty, especially when the Act was subsequently amended to allow revision of belated returns.
The CIT(A) correctly reduced the addition on account of bogus purchases by considering the profit already declared by the assessee. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order as the revenue did not controvert the findings with any positive material.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only a 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance is not justified, and the 12.5% disallowance meets the ends of justice given the grey market purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, finding it a fair and reasonable estimation of profit. The AO's original addition of 100% was deemed to be a presumption without specific findings.
The Tribunal restored the issue of trade creditors to the AO for fresh adjudication, finding that the CIT(A) wrongly rejected additional evidence. The disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A was deleted, while the disallowance of administrative expenses was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that while additions were justified to account for profit on bogus purchases, the estimated addition of 12.5% was on the higher side for a low-margin commodity. The addition was restricted to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that a protective addition cannot be made without a substantive addition in the hands of the primary owner. Since there was a contradiction regarding the assessment of the husband, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to ascertain the facts.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee was a capital receipt and not income. Therefore, it could not be taxed as capital gains and should be reduced while computing book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not automatic and could not be imposed solely because quantum additions were accepted. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to support the purchase transactions.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as not maintainable, citing CBDT circulars that enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue could file a miscellaneous application if the issues fell under specific exceptions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases, not the entire amount, is taxable. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted, following previous judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's accumulation purpose was sufficiently specified given the trust's single object. It also noted that Section 10(23EA) exemption was already allowed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A), with revenue's appeal against it dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the decision in Turner International India (P) Ltd., where software distributors were accepted as comparables for a similar business. The TPO was directed to re-examine the comparables based on the ITAT's previous ruling.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the non-genuine purchases. This decision was found to be in line with judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed addition was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the TPO cannot determine the ALP of an international transaction at nil on an ad-hoc basis without applying a prescribed method. The addition made on account of adjustment to the ALP of Corporate Fee was deleted.
The Tribunal, considering a previous order for a different assessment year, reduced the estimated addition to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases, amounting to Rs. 2,47,003/-. The penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. It also noted that the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) is an internal agency and not an 'external source' as per the circular.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order cannot be considered erroneous merely due to lack of elaborate discussion, especially when the assessee provided necessary details and the AO took a permissible view. The issue of IBNR/IBNER provisions is debatable, and when two views are possible, revision under section 263 is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence, including broker confirmations and bank statements, and complied with TDS provisions. The CIT(A)'s arbitrary reduction of brokerage rates was not justified as the payments were found to be genuine and not excessive.
The tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) as the revenue failed to establish the unreasonableness of the expenditure. The disallowance under Section 14A was confirmed to the extent of Rs. 6,675/-.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding the restriction of bogus purchase addition, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s approach of disallowing only the profit element. However, for Section 14A disallowance, the issue was remitted to the AO to consider only investments generating exempt income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit on non-genuine purchases at 8%, considering that the assessee had made corresponding sales and the profit element was added instead of the full purchase value.