Loading ITAT cases…
271 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of bogus purchases was made on an estimated basis, and the assessee had provided necessary details. Therefore, there was no case of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, making the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had previously set aside the cancellation of the assessee's 12A registration. Therefore, the basis for denying exemption under Section 11 was no longer valid. The matter was remitted to the AO to consider the restored registration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance is not justified, and 12.5% strikes a balance, considering purchases were made from the grey market.
The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the quantum proceedings were deleted by the ITAT, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) had no basis and was therefore rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
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 addition was made on an estimated basis, and since the assessee furnished all details, they cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment. The conduct of the assessee was not contumacious to warrant penalty.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable. This decision was based on a mutual agreement between the parties to follow a CBDT circular directing withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000.
The Tribunal held that when an addition to income is sustained on an estimation or ad-hoc basis, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was justified.
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 set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee was granted an opportunity to explain the delay and present their case with the submitted material.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain a 10% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that since the sales were not doubted, a 100% disallowance was not justified, and the 10% reduction met the ends of justice.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, finding no infirmity in the order.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) which restricted the disallowance to 25% of the non-genuine purchases, following judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who had elaborately considered the submissions and case laws to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who had elaborately considered the submissions and case laws to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 2% of alleged bogus purchases. This was based on the identical facts and the precedent set in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 2% of alleged bogus purchases. The tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as it was based on a prior ruling on identical facts.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict the disallowance to 30% of the purchases. The CIT(A) found that while the genuineness of the purchases was not fully proven, a 100% disallowance was not justified as it was not conclusively established that no material was purchased or that cash was received back.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 25% of the purchases, considering the evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 25% of the purchases, considering the evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 25% of the purchases, considering the evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of interest expenditure. It found that the facts and circumstances were identical to earlier assessment years where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in restricting the disallowance to 30% of the non-genuine purchases. The CIT(A) had considered that while some purchases were accommodation entries, some materials must have been utilized for the government contract.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who had considered the evidence and judicial pronouncements to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on tangible material. However, it found that the AO had not conducted independent inquiries and relied solely on information from DGIT(Inv.). Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the profit element from bogus purchases at 4%.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure was to be allowed to the extent of gross assessed income, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case and other similar cases. The levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was to be recomputed after considering TDS.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, finding no infirmity in the order. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeals as disposed of as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted for restoration if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the case without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the foreign AEs should be accepted as the tested party, following the principle of consistency and the nature of their limited role as distributors. The Tribunal also ruled that the provision of performance guarantees did not fall within the ambit of international transactions.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases, considering that the assessee's sales were not doubted. It was reasoned that 100% disallowance is not permissible when sales are genuine.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. It was held that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed, not the entire purchase price.
Following a Madras High Court order, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to settle the dispute under the VSVS. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the VSVS outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It was noted that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance is not justified, and 12.5% meets the ends of justice in this case.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the matter without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order was not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the estimated GP on bogus purchases from 12.5% to 6% and remanding the issue of interest disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeals was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative agreed with this assessment.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeal as withdrawn since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of investment was an expenditure on an abandoned project linked to the assessee's business and allowable as revenue expenditure. It also found merit in the assessee's contention that bonus payments were commensurate with efforts in exiting a project.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed the audit report before the due date of return filing, and the CBDT circulars provided for condonation of such delays. Therefore, the disallowance of exemption under Section 11 was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the commission payments were made to non-residents for services rendered outside India, and no part of the income was chargeable to tax in India, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that stamp duty, registration fees, and society transfer fees incurred on the transfer of property are allowable expenditures while computing short-term capital gains. It also held that Section 14A disallowance is not sustainable if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified as the assessee had provided substantial primary evidence for the purchases. The CIT(A) had erred in disregarding these documents and making a factual error regarding the stock register.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim under Section 54 at the appellate stage without it being claimed in the original return. It also questioned allowing the claim on the sale of two properties when the section refers to 'a house property'.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the matter without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order was set aside in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were found to be bogus, the entire addition was not justifiable. It restricted the addition to the extent of the profit element, citing various High Court and Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal held that state taxes paid overseas are not deductible under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. However, it allowed the claim for double taxation relief under Section 90 or 91 for these taxes.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, investments are presumed to be out of these funds, and no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is warranted. For indirect expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), disallowance should only be on investments yielding exempt income.