Loading ITAT cases…
141 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer levied penalty merely on suspicion and failed to prove that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed.
The Tribunal held that the amounts disclosed in the tax audit report were already accounted for as miscellaneous income and were not taxable under Section 41. It also ruled that the rental income from the IT park, which involved providing various facilities and services, constituted business income, not income from house property.
The Tribunal held that the contract charges paid for land development were erroneously disallowed by the AO, especially considering the IT Settlement Commission's findings. However, disallowances for compensation to retiring partners and salary/wages were upheld due to lack of sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's income is not taxable under Article 15 of the India-UK DTAA, following previous decisions in similar cases. The Tribunal found that the issues raised were recurring and had been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 73 is not applicable when the assessee's main business is trading in shares. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute disallowances, considering only investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that while profit on bogus purchases should be taxed, the estimated GP of 12.5% was on the higher side. It reduced the GP estimation on bogus purchases to 5% over the declared GP. The penalty ground was dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal restored the issue of administrative expenses to the Assessing Officer for re-computation based on past accepted formulas. The payment to Coimbatore Municipal Corporation was allowed as it was not penal in nature.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance of brokerage payments as the recipients had confirmed receipt and offered it to tax, and M/s. Lakshmi Construction confirmed the services rendered. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance of the profit share, noting it was tax-neutral as the recipient had offered it to tax.
The Tribunal held that Demat charges were business expenditure and not related to earning exempt income. It also found that the disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was unwarranted as the assessee had sufficient own funds. The issue of client referral fees was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of genuineness.
The Tribunal held that Genesys International Corporation Ltd. was not functionally comparable based on previous rulings. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on goodwill. The claim for additional depreciation on goodwill and set-off of brought forward losses were restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee is not to be included in the gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. This decision was based on previous rulings by the Tribunal and High Courts.
The Tribunal held that a performance guarantee cannot be equated with a bank guarantee and that the arm's length price of the guarantee commission should be fixed at 0.25% based on an internal comparable.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to a lack of details. In the interest of justice, the tribunal decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to submit the required information.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that no disallowance of interest was warranted as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. It also upheld the deletion of the addition for suppressed investment, finding it based on unsubstantiated seized documents.
The Tribunal held that the period of lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic should be excluded when calculating the 90-day period for pronouncement of orders. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the period of lockdown should be excluded when calculating the 90-day time limit for pronouncement of orders, following Supreme Court and High Court directives. The appeal in ITA No. 2848/Mum/2019 was dismissed, while ITA No. 345/Mum/2018 was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that for the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) to apply, the recipient must be a shareholder of the lending company. Since the assessee was not a shareholder in the companies from which it received funds, the amounts could not be treated as deemed dividend.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted in a bonafide manner by withdrawing the claim upon learning of the institute's irregularities. They found no conclusive evidence that the assessee's contribution was not genuine.
The Tribunal held that the period of lockdown due to COVID-19 should be excluded when calculating the 90-day period for pronouncement of orders. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed on this procedural ground.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of the loose papers being projections for a bank loan was plausible, especially considering the company's financial difficulties. The AO's addition was based on presumption without cogent material.
The Tribunal held that additions made on an estimation basis, as was the case after the CIT(A)'s order, do not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the period of lockdown due to Covid-19 should be excluded when calculating the 90-day period for pronouncement of orders. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the land sold was agricultural land and therefore exempt from tax. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue had accepted similar claims from other co-owners of the same land.
The Tribunal held that the land sold was agricultural land and therefore exempt from tax. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue had accepted similar claims from other co-owners of the same land.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was an entry provider and set aside the CIT(A)'s order to re-adjudicate the commission rate, considering a previous Tribunal order. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objections due to a significant delay and lack of a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a cryptic order and had not considered the details filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections. This failure violated principles of natural justice and the established legal precedents.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of purchases from suspicious dealers but reduced the estimated profit rate from 12.5% to 8% on the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable as the AO did not issue summons and ignored documentary evidence. The CIT(A) also erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without applying their mind.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not fully substantiated, the assessee had made sales from these purchases and likely saved on VAT and transportation. Therefore, a reasonable profit could be estimated on these bogus bills.
The Tribunal, following its own previous orders and High Court decisions, held that computer printers are part of the computer system and are eligible for depreciation at 60%. The lower authorities' orders were set aside.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the addition was an estimated addition and the assessee had submitted evidence of purchases in good faith.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the issue of carrying forward deficits for trusts is covered in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court's judgment. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 45,00,000 as unexplained cash credit. It ruled that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the existence of the share applicant, especially when the company was found to be non-existent.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the addition was an estimated addition and the assessee had submitted evidence of purchases in good faith.
The Tribunal found that the assessees failed to provide evidence of beneficiaries and commission earned. The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit rate to 2% for accommodation entries and remitted a loan addition issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, finding no fault with the estimation of profit. The Revenue could not establish any error in the CIT(A)'s order.
The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering the assessee had shown onward sales. The Tribunal confirmed this estimation of profit.
The CIT(A) rightly restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering the profit element embedded therein, following the Gujarat High Court's decision. The Tribunal confirmed this decision.
The Tribunal held that the provision for mines reclamation expenses was not allowable as it was contingent. However, the issue of allowing actual expenses incurred was already remanded by the CIT to the AO for verification.