Loading ITAT cases…
271 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Tribunal considered the withdrawal request and the lack of opposition from the Revenue.
Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement is not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that an addition made on an estimation basis does 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 addition of 25% by the CIT(A) was not in consonance with the Gujarat High Court ruling in CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that penalty levied on additions made on an estimation basis for bogus purchases, without disproving the assessee's filed information, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal with liberty to restore it if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit of ₹50 lakh as per CBDT Circulars. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause. It held that a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, reduced by the gross profit already declared.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, following the Madras High Court's decision in a similar case where the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The assessee is permitted to seek restoration of the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement is not favorable.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. It also found the 100% disallowance of unpaid supplier balances uncalled for.
The tribunal held that the appeals filed by the revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the latest CBDT circular. Liberty was granted to the revenue to seek recall if exceptions apply or the tax effect exceeds the limit.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of a claim by the Assessing Officer does not automatically imply that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they intended to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in each appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The ITAT held that amenities charges paid by the assessee should be included in the cost of acquisition, especially since other flat owners also entered into similar agreements. The matter was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. The disallowance should be restricted to the profit element embedded in such purchases.
The Tribunal held that the legal grounds regarding the defective show cause notice were not sustainable as there was no ambiguity in the AO's order. However, on merits, the penalty was deleted because the return was a belated loss return, and TDS was deducted against the claimed rent, indicating no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to follow the mandate of law by not referring the property valuation to the Department Valuation Authority (DVO) when the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation. The order of the AO and CIT(A) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, acknowledging that while the assessee had primary documents and made payments through banking channels, they failed to conclusively prove the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below ₹.50 Lakhs, in accordance with the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 3.3% of suspicious purchases, considering the assessee had already offered a Gross Profit Rate of 9.20%. Making further additions would lead to abnormal GP rates.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed jurisdictional ITAT Mumbai decisions and High Court rulings in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect on the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakh as per the CBDT circular. Since no exceptions applied, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) correctly noted the assessee did not file a revised return, the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. does not preclude the ITAT from entertaining claims otherwise than by a revised return. Therefore, the claim was admitted in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, following a High Court order which allowed assessees opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to withdraw their appeals. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's decision was not in their favor.
Following a similar High Court order, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that the AO had recorded the necessary satisfaction under Section 14A(2). However, it found that the AO's computation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was not properly examined and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. The addition should be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same level as other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the income without proper opportunity to the assessee and in disallowing expenses based on financial statement discrepancies. The Tribunal also affirmed the deletion of the AO's addition, stating that no notional income could be assessed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable because the additions were based on estimation and did not necessarily indicate concealment of income. Furthermore, the appeal did not meet the monetary limits set by the CBDT's low tax effect circular.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot revisit the objects of the assessee for denying exemption under section 11 if the section 12A registration, based on those objects, is still valid and the objects have not changed. The claim of services being provided to others was not factually verified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case. It directed the AO to restrict the addition to 5% of the value of purchases from the alleged party, considering it as the profit element.
The Tribunal held that a mere denial of a claim by the Assessing Officer does not automatically render the assessee liable for penalty. It found no concealment or inaccurate particulars regarding the interest on late payments or the diversion of funds for interest-free loans.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the income without proper opportunity to the assessee and in disallowing expenses based on financial statement discrepancies. The Tribunal also affirmed the deletion of the AO's addition, stating that no notional income could be assessed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not prove the genuineness of all purchases, the Assessing Officer had not found any discrepancy in the books of account. Therefore, the addition should be restricted to the difference between the profit estimated by the AO and the profit declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that revised claims made by an assessee, even if not through a revised return, can be considered by appellate authorities. The technical rejection by the lower authorities was contrary to settled legal principles.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs and the appeal was not covered by any exceptions in the relevant CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of third-party statements without confronting the assessee or providing an opportunity for cross-examination. Without corroborative evidence, the addition was based on conjecture and surmises.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Following a favorable non-jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not clear about the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was to be levied. The penalty order is unsustainable as the reason for levying penalty was different from the reason for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The Tribunal noted that the lenders were traceable, had reserves and bank balances, and the transactions were routed through banking channels for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be provided a fair opportunity to furnish evidence to prove the genuineness of the expenditure. The first appellate authority's order was set aside, and the issue was restored for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of non-genuine purchases, considering that the assessee had provided some documentary evidence and the sales effected by the assessee were accepted.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas application was not accepted, with delay to be condoned.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, the revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
Following a High Court precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn since the assessees opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the scheme's outcome was not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT overstepped his revisional powers as the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view based on available documents and judicial pronouncements. The assessment order was not erroneous, even if it resulted in a loss of revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, following the Madras High Court's decision. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if their declaration under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' was not accepted.