Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 4 of 9
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the application under the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to approach for restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal if the settlement process encountered unforeseen issues.
The Tribunal held that the disallowed interest expense should not have been added back to short-term capital loss. Instead, the income from other sources should be assessed at the net figure after considering allowed interest expenses.
The Tribunal held that the management service fees received by the assessee do not fall under the definition of royalty as per Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. The services rendered did not involve imparting of know-how or transfer of knowledge, skill, or experience.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding bonafides in the assessee's petition. The appeal was admitted for hearing on merits, allowing the assessee to pursue settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee had filed a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The dismissal was subject to the assessee's right to revive the appeal if the matter was not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. As the scheme resolves the dispute, the appeal is required to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal remanded the disallowance under Section 14A to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal allowed the deduction for education cess and surcharge, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and filed the necessary forms. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the assessee's working of Rs. 99,600, considering the short holding period of the investment. For depreciation, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing depreciation on the revised WDV, as the issue was covered by High Court precedents.
The Tribunal acknowledged that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal must be withdrawn. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its claims with evidence.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of a claim does not automatically lead to penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Relying on Supreme Court decisions, it was found that penalty cannot be invoked unless there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit embedded in the bogus purchases at 12.5% and add it to the assessee's income. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach to be judicious and correct, considering that the sales were not doubted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, since the assessee opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, no adjudication on merits was required.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, since the assessee opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, no adjudication on merits was required.
The Tribunal held that the Japanese tax authorities' view that the professional fees were taxable under Article 12 of the India-Japan tax treaty was a reasonable and bonafide view. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to foreign tax credit for the taxes paid in Japan.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, since the assessee opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, no adjudication on merits was required.
The Tribunal, following a High Court decision, held that the profit percentage on disputed purchases for similar industries should be estimated at 12.5%. Therefore, the disallowance on account of bogus purchases was restricted to 12.5% of the value.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and submitted the necessary application. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, since the assessee opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, no adjudication on merits was required.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the profit element on bogus purchases. It reasoned that while the sales out of these purchases were not doubted, the non-existence of the suppliers, evidenced by unserved notices, justified taxing the profit embedded in such transactions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and submitted the necessary application. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the telescoping of commission income against the income declared in the assessee's books of accounts, relying on a previous decision for AY 2011-12. However, an issue regarding the computation of investment increase for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 54,000/-. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction of education cess and surcharge paid on Income Tax.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and filed the necessary forms. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the property was not covered under the Rent Control Act and the ALV was correctly determined based on comparable properties in the same building. The assessee's case was found to be similar to that of another co-owner whose appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the trading loss claimed by the assessee was allowable as it was consistent with the method of valuation of stock-in-trade. The additions made under the head 'Income from House Property' were quashed, and the directions given by the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the trading loss claimed by the assessee was allowable as it was consistent with the method of valuation of stock-in-trade. The additions made under the head 'Income from House Property' were quashed, and the directions given by the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that 'cess' is not included in the expression 'any rate or tax levied' as per Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, payments made towards education cess and higher and secondary education cess are allowable as deductions.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the security deposit and rental income had already been examined by the AO during the original assessment under Section 143(3). Reopening the assessment based on the same issue constituted a change of opinion, which is not permissible. Furthermore, the reopening was done after four years, and all material facts had been disclosed by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 25% of the non-genuine purchases. It reasoned that the assessee provided some evidence, sales were not doubted, and the disallowance was limited to the profit element.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect and not falling under exceptions for reopening. Even on merits, the evidence provided by the assessee satisfied the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the estimation of 25% profit on bogus purchases was on the higher side. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision, considering the nature of the business and relevant High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in treating the STCG as business income without plausible reasons. It followed the principle of consistency and previous ITAT and High Court decisions in similar cases.
The Tribunal noted that where own interest-free funds are sufficient to cover investments, no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is warranted. However, the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentation to prove this. The Tribunal also acknowledged that disallowance cannot exceed exempt income.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Finding merit in the request, the Tribunal accepted it and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement is not accepted or if they decide not to file a declaration. Any delay in restoration applications would be condoned.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not substantiate its claim with evidence and that the claim was not made in the original return. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were attracted, and since the property was vacant due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the ALV should be considered nil. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decision in the assessee's case for a similar issue.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the disallowance under Section 14A, finding that the AO failed to demonstrate the inadequacy of the assessee's suo-moto disallowance. It also allowed the deletion of the addition on account of TDS differences, noting that the unreconciled amount was minor and the assessee's reported income exceeded the TDS data.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with proper opportunities to present evidence and that the CIT(A) overlooked additional grounds of appeal. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. The Tribunal agreed that while the source might be questionable, the purchases themselves likely occurred, and the profit element was estimated.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the non-genuine purchases, considering that the assessee's sales turnover was not doubted and the profit element in the purchases was brought to tax.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the addition based on the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases, aligning with the jurisdictional High Court's decision.