Loading ITAT cases…
271 orders · Page 5 of 6
The tribunal held that claiming depreciation at a higher rate, when disallowed by the AO, does not constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable.
The Tribunal held that interest on advance tax and self-assessment tax is payable from the first day of the assessment year until the date of refund. It further clarified that adjusting refunds against interest due before adjusting against tax does not constitute 'interest on interest'. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The CIT(A) correctly held that the land sold was agricultural land situated outside municipal limits, thus not a capital asset, and exempt from capital gains tax. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this finding.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit on these purchases at 12%, considering that while the suppliers were unverified, the sales corresponding to these purchases were accepted. The addition was reduced to Rs. 1,50,223/-.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed decided the case without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a profit percentage of 3% on the value of alleged bogus purchases. This quantum would reduce the work in progress for the assessment year, with corresponding effects on subsequent years.
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 since the corresponding sales were not doubted by the AO, only the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases could be brought to tax. The CIT(A) had reasonably estimated this profit element at 12.5%, which was upheld.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to follow previous coordinate bench orders regarding the computation of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 220(2). The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the issue of certain disallowances on lodging and boarding/food expenses to the AO for fresh verification due to discrepancies and lack of clear nexus with business purpose. The levy of interest under sections 234B and 234D and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were upheld.
The Tribunal acknowledged a mistake apparent from the record regarding the Assessment Year in its previous order. It has issued a corrigendum to rectify this error, replacing the incorrect year with the correct one.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, following the principle of consistency and the ruling of the Karnataka High Court regarding the 'make available' clause in tax treaties. The Tribunal found that the services provided did not meet the criteria for 'fees for technical services' as defined in the India-Singapore tax treaty.
Following a Madras High Court order, the Tribunal treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn, given the assessee's intention to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the scheme's outcome was not favorable.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, considering the assessee possessed primary purchase documents and corresponding sales were accounted for. Estimating additions at 12.5% was deemed fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from the time charter of the vessel and mobilization fees were not to be treated as royalty under the Act or the DTAA. However, the issue of reimbursement of expenses was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal followed a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case, which held that the assessee had discharged its burden to prove the genuineness of purchases. The Tribunal found the facts identical and the Revenue's appeals not maintainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that three companies (Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd., Eclerx Services Ltd., and Accentia Technologies Ltd.) included by the TPO/DRP in the comparable list were not functionally similar or appropriate for benchmarking. Consequently, the Tribunal directed their exclusion.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek recall if exceptions applied or the tax effect exceeded the limit.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for the unsecured loans and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. For the interest from partners, applying the principle of consistency, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made under 'income from other sources'.
The Tribunal followed a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case, which held that the assessee had discharged its burden to prove the genuineness of purchases. The Tribunal found the facts identical and the Revenue's appeals not maintainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show cause notice, rendering the penalty invalid. The Tribunal quashed the penalty order.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee being an individual, decided to provide another opportunity for hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the limit fixed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender for the cash credit, directing the AO to delete the addition. Regarding other expenses, the Tribunal deleted ad-hoc disallowances, following a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal noted that the previous year's orders relied upon by the CIT(A) were themselves restored for fresh adjudication by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the evidence furnished by the assessee was not properly examined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessee deserves an opportunity to explain the issues with supporting evidence.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the amount received by the assessee upon retirement from the partnership firm was in the nature of a retirement benefit and not taxable as capital gains. The Tribunal upheld this decision.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the amount received by the assessee upon retirement from the partnership firm was in the nature of a retirement benefit and not taxable as capital gains. The Tribunal upheld this decision.
The Tribunal held that re-opening of assessment after four years was invalid as the Assessing Officer had already applied his mind to the issue in the original assessment, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer's failure to dispose of the objections independently rendered the reassessment invalid.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable to interest received from the Head Office, but the disallowance should be restricted to the extent of exempt income. For Section 44C, the Tribunal found that the assessee was eligible for the deduction, setting aside the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had applied his mind and taken a possible view. The CIT's order was quashed for not establishing that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, considering it fair and reasonable. The Tribunal reasoned that the disallowance likely aimed to tax the suppressed profit element.
The Tribunal held that since the transactions occurred before the jurisdictional High Court's decision clarifying that book entries attract sections 269SS and 269T, there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure of referring the disputed valuation to the DVO as required by law. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified and could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness of lenders, and genuineness of the transactions by providing confirmations, PANs, bank statements, and other documentary evidence. The AO failed to rebut these submissions.
The Tribunal held that the addition of unrealized rent was unjustified as the assessee had satisfied the conditions of Rule 4 by demonstrating that legal proceedings would be useless and that a settlement was reached. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the disallowance based on the ratio of exempt income to total income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished full particulars of the expenditure and the dispute was only regarding the nature of expenditure (capital vs. revenue). Since depreciation was allowed on the disallowed amount, the assessee was entitled to claim the expenditure, albeit with a timing difference.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient documentation. Following its own prior decisions and Supreme Court pronouncements, the Tribunal found that additions under Section 68 were unwarranted when the assessee proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the payments to transporters were made on behalf of farmers for agricultural produce and were covered under Rule 6DD(e). The genuineness of the transactions was not disputed, and the payees were identifiable.
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 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT Circulars which set monetary limits for filing appeals before the ITAT. The tax effect in this case was below the specified limit.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for pre-commencement expenses as a deduction over a period. Regarding transfer pricing, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider a risk adjustment and recalculate the arm's length price based on cost rather than turnover.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for resolution under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT. The Assessing Officer's arguments did not fall under any exceptions to the circular.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee against the rejection of a stay application is not maintainable under Section 253 of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that a statement cannot be used against an assessee without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. Since this opportunity was denied, the issue needs to be re-adjudicated.
The Tribunal restricted the addition on account of bogus purchases to 2% of the alleged bogus purchases, following a coordinate bench's decision. For additions under Section 68 regarding capital introduction, the Tribunal allowed 50% as genuine due to lack of proper disclosure and evidence.
The Tribunal found that the earlier order for AY 2010-11, dealing with an identical issue, was inadvertently overlooked. This constituted a mistake apparent on the face of the record, warranting recall of the appeal order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases was justified, following its own previous decisions in similar cases. The profit element embedded in such purchases is taxable.