Loading ITAT cases…
230 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that since the sales against bogus purchases were not questioned, the profit embedded in the bogus purchase bills should be taxed. The estimation of 8% gross profit by the CIT(A) was considered fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned, following the decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reduction to the profit element to be just.
The Tribunal found that the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the transaction were not clearly established in the lower authorities' orders. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering that sales were not doubted and purchases were likely from the grey market.
The Tribunal held that the AO invoked the wrong limb of Section 271(1)(c) as the case involved furnishing inaccurate particulars of expenditure rather than concealment of income. The distinction between 'concealment' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars' is significant.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the 8% gross profit estimated by the CIT(A) was close to the assessee's declared gross profit of 8.98% for the relevant period. Therefore, there was no reason to disturb the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that while unproved purchases might justify an addition, they do not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) if the revenue has not disproved the authenticity of the claim with clinching evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the assessee had withdrawn the claim of carry forward of STCL, no case for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) was made out.
The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 8% of the bogus purchases by following a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the bogus transactions can be taxed, not the entire amount. The addition of sales tax payments made on bogus purchases was also deleted.
The Tribunal found the estimated gross profit of 12.5% to be on the higher side and restricted it to 5%. The legal grounds challenging the validity of re-assessment were not adjudicated as the merit grounds were decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the payments received for IDC services were not in the nature of royalty or FTS under the Act or the DTAA, following its own previous decisions. Consequently, these payments were not taxable in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount voluntarily disallowed by the assessee, following consistent past precedents from the Tribunal and the jurisdictional High Court. The AO's computation was found to be excessive.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for processing TDS statements filed before this date, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy the late fee.
The Tribunal, following its previous decision, restored the issues of depreciation on goodwill and preliminary expenses written off to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter on merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred by not referring the property valuation to the Valuation Officer when the assessee disputed the stamp duty value. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after obtaining the DVO's report.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's method of estimating the arm's length price for intra-group services was unsustainable as it did not follow the prescribed methods under Section 92C of the Act. The adjustment made by the TPO on this account was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technical ground without adjudicating on merits. Given the potential ambiguity in the applicability of the electronic filing rule to assessment orders passed prior to its effective date, and the fact that an electronic appeal was eventually filed, the matter was remitted back.
The Tribunal, following its previous decision, restored the issues of depreciation on goodwill and preliminary expenses written off to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter on merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the benefit of indexation with reference to the year the previous owner first held the asset, following a coordinate bench's decision on the same property. The Revenue's grounds were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, as the Land Earth Station was not owned or controlled by the assessee. Consequently, the issue of income attributable to a PE became academic. The Tribunal also ruled that surcharge and education cess should not be levied on income taxed at treaty rates.
The Tribunal held that once the additions/disallowances in the quantum proceedings are deleted, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) does not arise. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases, finding no infirmity in the order. The assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases or produce the vendors.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases, finding no infirmity in the order. The AO's full disallowance was considered excessive.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, following the Gujarat High Court's ruling in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, following the Gujarat High Court's precedent. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, following the Gujarat High Court's ruling in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth.
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 v. Simit P. Sheth.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. The CIT(A) reasoned that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed, citing similar cases and the assessee's own subsequent assessment year.
The Tribunal found that the estimated gross profit by the lower authorities was on the higher side. It reduced the estimated gross profit on bogus purchases to 8% to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal, following its previous decision, restored the issues of depreciation on goodwill and preliminary expenses written off to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter on merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not have an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be charged for late filing of TDS statements before this date.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that while 100% disallowance is not permissible when sales are not doubted, purchases from the grey market warrant some disallowance to account for tax evasion.
The Tribunal noted that similar additions for a subsequent assessment year were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, where no addition was ultimately made. The Tribunal found that the facts were identical and the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that similar additions for a subsequent assessment year were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, where no addition was ultimately made. The Tribunal found that the facts were identical and the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed in the name of non-existing entities are void-ab-initio and invalid. Following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 10(34) for dividend income is allowable to the assessee and Section 14A is not applicable to insurance companies. The addition on account of negative reserves was also deleted, following established judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 12.5% of the bogus purchases. It reasoned that a 100% disallowance is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, restricting additions for bogus purchases to 2% for AY 2012-13, deleting additions for interest and commission, and directing a re-computation of disallowance under Section 14A. The interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) for AY 2013-14 was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of apportioning composite expenses was fair and reasonable. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount computed by the assessee, with a direction to the AO to recompute the income accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient own funds (share capital, reserves, and interest-free loans) to make the advances. Therefore, there was no nexus between borrowed funds and the capital advances, making the disallowance unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when the addition is made on an estimated basis. The conduct of the assessee was not contumacious, and the tax effect was below the CBDT limit.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. However, it restricted the disallowance for bogus purchases to 2% for AY 2012-13, deleted additions for interest and commission, and directed a re-computation of disallowance under Section 14A. For AY 2013-14, an interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, restricting additions for bogus purchases to 2% for AY 2012-13, deleting additions for interest and commission, and directing a re-computation of disallowance under Section 14A. The interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) for AY 2013-14 was deleted.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's representative and the Departmental Representative that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal of the assessee for the said assessment year was allowed by the Hon'ble Tribunal, the penalty levied cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Departmental Representative also conceded to this fact.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.