Loading ITAT cases…
213 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment is bad in law when the disallowance made is not connected to the reasons recorded for reopening. Applying the ratio of the Jet Airways Ltd. case, the Tribunal found the reopening to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C of the Income Tax Act was not applicable to the assessment year 2009-10, as per the decision in M/s. Vedanta Limited. Consequently, the assessment order passed beyond the original time limit was considered time-barred and void.
The Tribunal allowed the claims for depreciation, interest, and running expenses, following a previous decision where it was held that depreciation is allowable even if the vehicle is registered in a director's name. Consequently, the penalty levied on these disallowances was also deleted.
The Tribunal followed its previous order and the Bombay High Court's decision, setting aside the issue to the Assessing Officer. The disallowance for bogus purchases is to be restricted to the gross profit rate of genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment is bad in law when the disallowance made is not connected to the reasons recorded for reopening. Applying the ratio of the Jet Airways Ltd. case, the Tribunal found the reopening to be invalid.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without ensuring the assessee's presence or properly considering their request for adjournment. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that although opportunities were provided, the assessee could not appear. Considering the additions/disallowances made by the AO, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal followed its previous order and the Bombay High Court's decision, setting aside the issue to the Assessing Officer. The disallowance for bogus purchases is to be restricted to the gross profit rate of genuine purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was already restored to the Assessing Officer in the assessee's own appeal for the same assessment year. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. For disallowance under Section 14A in book profit computation, the issue was restored to the AO. The cross-objection regarding Rule 8D(2)(iii) was allowed, directing the AO to consider only investments yielding dividend income.
The Tribunal dismissed the disallowance of job work charges due to lack of evidence. The disallowance of interest was remanded for re-examination. Disallowances for vehicle and business promotion expenses were reduced to 10%.
The Tribunal allowed the claims for depreciation, interest, and running expenses, following a previous decision where it was held that depreciation is allowable even if the vehicle is registered in a director's name. Consequently, the penalty levied on these disallowances was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the claimed expenditures. The ad-hoc disallowances made by the AO without proper verification were found to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth.
The Tribunal held that the assessment year 2010-11 fell within the block period for assessment under Section 153C, as the satisfaction for initiating proceedings was recorded in FY 2010-11. Therefore, the regular assessment order was legally infirm.
The Tribunal allowed the claims for depreciation, interest, and running expenses, following a previous decision where it was held that depreciation is allowable even if the vehicle is registered in a director's name. Consequently, the penalty levied on these disallowances was also deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard due to unserved notices. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. However, an estimation of profit element from such purchases is justified. The disallowance was restricted to 4% of the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular is applicable to pending cases as well.
The Tribunal followed the judicial precedent of Pr.CIT Vs. Md. Haji Adam & Co. and the jurisdictional Bombay High Court decision. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for verification and examination of facts.
The Tribunal held that the allowance of legitimate business expenditure is not dependent on earning income. Since the business had not discontinued and the genuineness of expenses was not doubted, the disallowance was unjustified.
The Tribunal, following its own order for the immediately succeeding assessment year, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 8% of the purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect. For the cross-objections, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance of bogus purchases to 12.5% of the purchases.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that personal use of cars and lack of satisfactory evidence for expenses justified some ad-hoc disallowance. However, the disallowances made by the lower authorities were reduced based on the assessee's turnover and profits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard due to unserved notices. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for this purpose. Ground No. 2 regarding interest disallowance was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 8% of purchases, following the principle of consistency with a previous order in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, considering the evidence and judicial precedents. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on income that is sustained on an estimated basis. Since the addition on account of bogus purchases was restricted to 12.5% of the purchases by the CIT(A) and accepted by the assessee, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect. For the cross-objections, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance of bogus purchases to 12.5% of the purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of maintainability and low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular stipulates that no appeal should be filed by the Revenue where the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 5% of the non-genuine purchases, considering that payments were made by cheque and sales were not doubted. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, finding no infirmity in the order.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 5% of the non-genuine purchases, considering that payments were made by cheque and sales were not doubted. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 6.5% of the non-genuine purchases, finding no infirmity in the order. The AO's estimation of 12.5% profit was deemed not justified.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the assessee's submission regarding the corrected Form-26Q and allow the assessee to present necessary information.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IA(4) as its activities qualify as infrastructure facility, aligning with previous judicial pronouncements. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal ruled that disallowance for book profit calculation should not be made as per a Special Bench decision, but the claim for no disallowance due to self-owned funds requires factual verification.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT could not invoke Section 263 as two views were possible regarding the assessee's status as an agent of the State Government. The High Court's finding that the assessee is an agent under the MRTP Act was relevant.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the issue of notional rental income on unsold flats and that there were divergent views from High Courts on the matter. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous, and the PCIT's revisional jurisdiction was wrongly invoked.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the issue of notional rental income on unsold flats and that there were divergent views from High Courts on the matter. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous, and the PCIT's revisional jurisdiction was wrongly invoked.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind to the issue of bogus purchases and made an addition based on a possible view. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalidly exercised.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable. This decision was based on a CBDT circular directing withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. However, purchases from the 'grey market' indicate a profit element embedded within them.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹10,64,880 on account of stock discrepancies was not justified. Considering the volume of gold jewellery and diamonds handled, the unreconciled stock represented a very meager percentage of the total material. The assessee had provided plausible explanations, which were not found to be false or in-genuine. Therefore, the AO was directed to delete the addition. Regarding the denial of set-off of unabsorbed business losses, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for AY 2013-14. The AO was directed to decide the implication of Section 79 of the Act in light of the findings and observations made in the appeal for AY 2012-13. The Tribunal noted that the shareholding pattern and the applicability of the exception to Section 79 were key considerations for the AO's re-adjudication. The specific finding on the applicability of Section 79 for AY 2012-13 was not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the matter was remanded for AY 2013-14 based on the findings for AY 2012-13.
The Tribunal held that since sales were not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases was not justified. It directed that the disallowance should be calculated after deducting the gross profit declared by the assessee.