Loading ITAT cases…
271 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. The revenue was allowed to withdraw its appeal.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case, directed the AO to restrict the addition on account of bogus purchases to 3% of the value.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if the application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' fails.
The Tribunal held that the Trust's primary objects were for general public utility and charitable purposes. Any surplus generated from its activities was incidental and not the main objective, therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable. The Tribunal followed its own previous orders and decisions of higher courts on similar matters.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for resolution under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that F&O transactions carried out on a recognized stock exchange are specifically excluded from the definition of speculative transactions under Section 43(5)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the F&O loss should be treated as a regular business loss.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus regarding share capital. It also found that additions under section 14A were made without incriminating material in a section 153A assessment, reversing the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, following its own previous decisions and those of coordinate benches. The disallowance of interest expenditure was allowed to the extent of gross assessed income, and the addition for personal household expenses was reduced by 50%. The levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was also directed to be recomputed.
The Tribunal held that unsold flats held as stock-in-trade by a builder and developer cannot be assessed as income from house property on a notional basis. The assessability of notional income in such cases is not merited.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the facts were distinguishable from the Supreme Court's decision in N.K. Proteins Ltd. Following its own prior order on similar facts, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the estimation of profit to 8% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeal was to be treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 6% of the bogus purchases, following a precedent set in the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year. This decision was based on the principle that when sales are undisputed, a reasonable estimation of profit on bogus purchases is appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had commenced manufacturing activities and purchased new machinery, and that the transfer of an undertaking does not constitute reconstruction of business. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the GP to 12.5% on bogus purchases, finding the Assessing Officer's estimation of 16% to be on the higher side.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when an addition is made purely on an estimate basis, especially when the assessee had provided details and supporting documents. The Tribunal deleted the penalty levied by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the facts were distinguishable from the Supreme Court's decision in N.K. Proteins Ltd. Following its own prior order on similar facts, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the estimation of profit to 8% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had commenced manufacturing activities and purchased new machinery, and that the transfer of an undertaking does not constitute reconstruction of business. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency, noting that similar issues in prior years were decided in favor of the assessee. It held that a license is not a prerequisite for money lending business income for tax purposes.