Loading ITAT cases…
271 orders · Page 3 of 6
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.
Following a Madras High Court order, the tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn since the assessees opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessees for restoration of appeals if the scheme's outcome is not favorable.
Following the Madras High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement was not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made necessary inquiries and verified the investment for the Section 54 claim. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that obtaining possession is not a pre-condition for exemption and the date of the registered agreement is crucial. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order was quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee having filed compounding applications which were accepted by the concerned authority.
Following the Madras High Court's decision, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement is not favorable.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies when the date of agreement fixing consideration and the date of registration are different. The stamp duty value on the date of the agreement (booking date) should be considered.
The Tribunal noted that the addition on account of unexplained purchases had been deleted in the quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) on this addition could not survive.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, following a High Court decision where similar submissions were made regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the declaration under the Act was not favorable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities are charitable in nature and eligible for exemption under Section 11. It also found that the notice under Section 143(2) was not validly served, rendering the assessment order invalid. Grounds related to excess capitalization of interest and Section 234B interest were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for purchases is not justified, as sales are impossible without actual purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only a 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases. This was based on the principle that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified, and the 12.5% disallowance was considered to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that only the profit element embedded in bogus transactions should be taxed, not the entire amount. The impugned order was deemed fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities are charitable in nature and eligible for exemption under Section 11. It also found that the notice under Section 143(2) was not validly served, rendering the assessment order invalid. Grounds related to excess capitalization of interest and Section 234B interest were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the profit element in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. The reduction in ad-hoc disallowance of expenses was also deemed reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the entire bogus purchases cannot be added as sales were accepted. Only the profit element embedded in the bogus transactions should be taxed. The CIT(A)'s estimation of GP at 12.5% was found reasonable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 6% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal found the addition made by the Assessing Officer to be on the higher side and agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning based on the assessee's declared Gross Profit.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order peculiar and lacking application of mind. It held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, citing jurisdictional High Court precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance of purchases is not justified, and 12.5% meets the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on information without independent application of mind by the AO. It also found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the unsecured loan and that the ad-hoc disallowance was made without rejecting the assessee's books of account.
The Tribunal held that since no separate transportation charges were paid by the assessee, there was no obligation to deduct TDS on transportation costs. The lower authorities erred in treating the entire material cost as transportation cost.
The Tribunal held that since no separate transportation charges were paid by the assessee, there was no obligation to deduct TDS on transportation costs. The lower authorities erred in treating the entire material cost as transportation cost.
Following a High Court precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement is not favorable.
The Tribunal held that since no separate transportation charges were paid by the assessee, there was no obligation to deduct TDS on transportation costs. The lower authorities erred in treating the entire material cost as transportation cost.
The tribunal upheld the adhoc disallowance of expenses as reasonable. However, it set aside the addition under Section 41(1) and remitted the matter back to the AO for re-adjudication based on the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments with another co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Following the jurisdictional High Court's principle of preferring the assessee-favorable view in case of conflicting non-jurisdictional High Court decisions, the deduction was allowed.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. The addition should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases, aligning the gross profit rate with genuine purchases.
Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement is not favorable.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the merits of the claim and dismissing the appeal on a preliminary ground. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Goetze India, the ITAT noted that it has the jurisdiction to entertain claims not filed in a revised return.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas declaration was not favorable.
Following a High Court precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee chose to resolve the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
Following a High Court order, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was not favorable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for set-off of unabsorbed depreciation was allowable and had been duly allowed by the AO after verification. Appellate authorities can admit new claims raised during appeal proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the term 'tax' for the purpose of computing MAT credit under Section 115JAA includes surcharge and education cess. The prescribed ITR form also mandates the inclusion of these components in the calculation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of bogus purchases, finding no infirmity in the order. The Tribunal also dismissed the penalty appeal, stating that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the addition is sustained on an estimation basis.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the addition on account of bogus purchases was made on an estimated basis. The assessee's conduct was not contumacious, and the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if their Vivad Se Viswas declaration was not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for receiving the cash loan due to business exigencies. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on fixed deposits was directly and inextricably linked to the assessee's business of film production. Therefore, it was correctly treated as business income and not income from other sources.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not examined the assessee's claim of sufficient interest-free funds (advances from customers) to cover partner withdrawals. Therefore, the issue was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court judgment, treated the appeals as withdrawn since the assessees opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was not in their favor.
Following a Madras High Court order, the ITAT treated the appeal as withdrawn since 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 ex-gratia payment was not a contingent liability as it was approved by the Board of Directors and actually paid. The Tribunal also noted that similar claims were allowed in the assessee's own case by the Tribunal and the High Court.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 12.5% of the bogus purchase addition. It reasoned that while 100% disallowance is not justified when sales are not doubted, purchases from the grey market warrant some disallowance to account for tax evasion.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had no power to review an assessment order that had already been decided on merits by the CIT(A) and not challenged by the department. Subsequent developments or information not part of the original assessment records cannot make an assessment order erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings was bad in law due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record satisfaction and specify the exact charge in the assessment order and the notice. Consequently, the penalty levied was deleted.
Following the Madras High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's income was declared as Nil and the CIT(A) later allowed the Section 80P deduction in the quantum appeal, the penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax was not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the sales tax department's information was not examined, and no adverse inference was taken by the lower authorities. Therefore, to serve the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.