Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 5 of 9
The Tribunal held that the agreement to sell was registered in an earlier year, and the entire sale consideration was received in that year. Since Section 43CA was applicable only from AY 2014-15, and the AO had already considered the details, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the assessee's own case and previous ITAT decisions. It directed the AO to compute the interest attributable to certain investments and disallow it, allowing the deduction partially.
The Tribunal held that share application money, similar to loans, constitutes a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, losses arising from its transfer are allowable for set-off.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. It directed the AO to compute the interest attributable to certain investments and allow it as a deduction, while dismissing grounds related to interest levy.
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.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal at this stage, allowing the assessee to opt for the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application fails.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a rider that the assessee can approach for restoration if the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The tribunal held that the mandatory expenses incurred by the assessee to maintain its corporate identity are allowable as business expenses. Consequently, the resulting business loss and depreciation are eligible for set-off against house property income.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to pursue resolution under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the matter was not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the applications are not accepted.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal at this stage, acknowledging the assessee's intention to opt for the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the application is not accepted by the Department.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration is not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% on disputed purchases, considering it a reasonable estimation of profit. They noted that the assessee had not appealed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross objections were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal set aside the addition related to trade liabilities, directing the AO to delete it as no evidence suggested they were no longer payable. For franking, processing, and registration charges, the issue was remitted to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, holding that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the addition is based on an estimation of income, especially when the assessee has disclosed all purchase details. Agreeing to a quantum addition does not automatically imply filing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that a 12.5% GP rate was excessive for ferrous and non-ferrous items, which typically have a profit margin of 2-4%. They directed the AO to apply a GP rate of 4% on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not exigible when additions are made on an estimation basis and the assessee has made full and true disclosure of particulars in the return of income. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding suppressed sales and depreciation on the motor car, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders. However, the Tribunal remanded the issues concerning loans to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding suppressed sales and depreciation on the motor car, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders. However, the Tribunal remanded the issues concerning loans to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had already returned normal profits on these purchases, the addition should only be for the additional benefit derived from non-payment of VAT and other levies. Therefore, the addition was reduced to 8% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee could seek revival if the matter was not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and decided that no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the tenancy agreement clearly indicated the assessee was a monthly tenant with no transfer of property rights. Therefore, the stamp duty and registration charges were revenue in nature and allowable as expenditure.
The Tribunal held that levying a penalty based solely on presumption without verifying actual service of the notice is not justified. The order of the lower authorities was set aside, directing the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were from a tainted source, the assessee had exported the material. Therefore, the addition should be an estimation of profit on these transactions, not the full purchase value.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when there is only a change in the head of income, as the assessee had fully disclosed all particulars. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.
The Tribunal vacated the disallowance of the deduction. The Tribunal found that the grounds of appeal related to the validity of the reopening were not to be adjudicated as the disallowance was vacated on merits.
The tribunal rejected the adjournment request and dismissed the appeal. However, the assessee was granted liberty to recall the appeal if their Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme application was unsuccessful.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals, following a High Court decision regarding the VSVS scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to recall the appeals if they did not succeed under the VSVS scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in the first case, finding it reasoned and following Gujarat High Court precedent. In the second case, the Tribunal agreed that the addition was unsustainable as the assessment was reopened for one reason but the addition was made for another, citing the Jet Airways (Bom) decision.
The tribunal followed the Madras High Court's order and disposed of the appeals as withdrawn. Assessees were granted liberty to restore their appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's intention to use the VSVS. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with the liberty for the assessee to seek recall if VSVS proceedings are unsuccessful.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the set off of deficit to the period after the assessee's registration as a charitable trust. However, the issue regarding the deemed accumulation of income under Section 11(2) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that only the profit element embedded in non-genuine purchases can be disallowed, not the entire purchase amount. The addition was estimated at 12.5% of the disputed purchases.
The tribunal followed the Madras High Court's order and disposed of the appeals as withdrawn. Assessees were granted liberty to restore their appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the addition to 6.6% of alleged non-genuine purchases. This was considered fair and reasonable given the corresponding sales and industry profit norms.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element on bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. It also noted that the VAT authorities did not mention suspicious dealers in their order, which reduced the disallowance significantly.
The tribunal followed the Madras High Court's order and disposed of the appeals as withdrawn. Assessees were granted liberty to restore their appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty. It was held that non-protesting a quantum addition does not automatically imply furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and no penalty is leviable on estimated income.
The Tribunal found that the estimation of GP at 12.5% on bogus purchases was on the higher side. The Tribunal reduced the GP estimation to 8% on such purchases.
The Tribunal found that the estimation of GP at 12.5% on bogus purchases was on the higher side. The Tribunal reduced the GP estimation to 8% on such purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be brought to tax, as the Revenue had accepted the assessee's sales. Without corresponding purchases, sales cannot exist.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the assessee's sales were not doubted and sales cannot exist without corresponding purchases, only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be brought to tax, as sales were accepted and purchases were not substantiated. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be brought to tax, as sales were accepted and purchases were not substantiated. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals. Since the Revenue could not demonstrate any exception to the circular, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).