Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 6 of 9
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year. The addition was sustained at 4.6% of the bogus purchases.
The CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal on a technicality without adjudicating the grounds on merits or seeking a report from the AO. The CIT(A) has co-terminus powers to examine evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove that the impugned purchases either formed part of accounted sales or closing stock. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order restricting the addition to 4% was set aside.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and non-speaking, likely due to the ex-parte disposal. It was held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred for repairs to an existing leased structure and was of a revenue nature, not capital. The Tribunal noted that the revenue authorities failed to prove the creation of a new asset.
The Tribunal held that the disclosure of income and payment of advance tax by a partner, without retraction, binds the firm. The consistent application of the project completion method does not nullify a voluntary disclosure of undisclosed income and payment of tax thereon.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of referral services at nil without following prescribed methods. It also found that the assessee had substantiated the receipt of referral services from its AE with documentary evidence.
The tribunal followed the Madras High Court's order and disposed of the appeals as withdrawn.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 noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The departmental representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The tribunal followed the Madras High Court's order and disposed of the appeals as withdrawn.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The tribunal followed the Madras High Court's order and disposed of the appeals as withdrawn.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 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 held that a mere change in the assessee's name does not invalidate the exemption under Section 10(23A) if the objects and activities remain the same. The Tribunal also affirmed that educational activities, as conducted by the assessee, are considered charitable purposes.
The tribunal held that since the DDT payment was reflected in Form 26AS for the relevant assessment year, credit should be granted. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and grant credit for the DDT paid, subject to verification that no credit was given for AY 2015-16.
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 payments to stock exchanges for trading services are in the nature of facilities, not technical services, thus not requiring TDS under Section 194J. It also deleted transfer pricing adjustments based on the CIT(A)'s findings and directed verification of DDT payment.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not properly adjudicate the issues and failed to specify the provisions of law under which additions were made. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision in M/s. Nannusamy Mohan (HUF), dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement was not favorable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not exigible on the disallowance of depreciation for the director's residential house as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Similarly, penalty for non-deduction of TDS was considered double prejudice.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2013-14 (prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2017), the assessee is entitled to set off the addition made under Section 69A against business losses. The amendment disallowing such set-off is applicable only from AY 2017-18 onwards.
The ITAT followed a jurisdictional High Court decision and directed the CIT(A) to accept the appeal filed electronically by the assessee and adjudicate it on merits. The assessee was directed to file the appeal electronically within 15 days.
The Tribunal held that the AO's ad-hoc 10% increase on the notional rental income was unjustified given the declining trend in property valuation. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance considering only investments yielding exempt income and to reduce it by the amount already disallowed by the assessee, ensuring it does not exceed the exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to cure the technical defect before dismissing the appeal. The purpose of appeals should not be defeated by technicalities.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee was a gift from her four children, not sale consideration or income from other sources. Consequently, it is exempt under Section 56(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on fixed deposits, which were linked to business overdrafts, should be treated as business income, allowing for netting of interest expenses. The issue of the Rs. 15,00,000 was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration due to the assessee's inconsistent stands.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee offered unaccounted receipts and expenses, the expenses were not fully substantiated. Therefore, a profit of 40% on the gross unaccounted receipts was to be added as income. The addition on account of unexplained capital contribution was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the FDs were created out of business necessity to reduce the cost of borrowed funds for land acquisition, establishing commercial expediency.
The Tribunal held that income from foreign branches is to be included in the taxable income of the assessee in India, and credit for taxes paid abroad should be granted as per the DTAA. Regarding perpetual bonds, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account solely for not maintaining qualitative details in the stock register is not a sufficient ground. The AO failed to provide specific findings of fictitious losses or understated income. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's estimation of GP was based on a flawed premise.
Following a Madras High Court judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement is not in their favor.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. As the scheme resolves the dispute, the appeal is to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not receive the interest and their books were maintained on a cash system, they cannot be compelled to account for it. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine the TDS claim related to this un-accounted income.
The Tribunal held that discounts and bonuses offered to stockists were not in the nature of commission under Section 194H, and interest on delayed payments for purchases was not 'interest' as defined under Section 2(28A) for TDS purposes. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for non-deduction of TDS on these amounts.
The Tribunal held that there was a direct nexus between the interest income earned and the interest expenditure incurred, making it eligible for deduction. The transaction was considered a bona fide commercial arrangement, not a sham.
The Tribunal held that the payments for carriage fees/channel placement were a case of short deduction of TDS, not non-deduction, and therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not attracted. The disallowance of commission expenses was also deleted as the assessee provided a detailed breakup and the AO failed to substantiate his reasoning.
The Tribunal held that the share application money was received in an earlier assessment year (AY 2008-09), not the year under appeal (AY 2009-10). Therefore, no addition could be made under Section 68 for the current year. The AO's favorable remand report further supported the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was attributable to the conduct of the assessee's consultant. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity for compliance.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was below the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The assessee was given liberty to point out exceptions via a miscellaneous application.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the issue and taken a possible view in line with prevailing judicial decisions at the time of assessment. Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was not validly invoked.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the matter is not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the parties would have the liberty to seek restoration of the appeals.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the matter is not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the parties would have the liberty to seek restoration of the appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their request to avail the benefits of the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal held that a penalty cannot be levied on an addition made purely on an estimated basis. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 11(1)(a) for 15% of its gross income towards accumulation. The Tribunal reasoned that this 15% accumulation is unfettered and not subject to any conditions, meaning it is allowable irrespective of whether the entire income has been applied for charitable purposes or if there is a deficit. The Tribunal found no bar in law or specific provision in the Act that disallows this deduction in case of a deficit. The Tribunal noted that the AO's reliance on Goetze India Ltd. was misplaced in this context, as the issue was not a fresh claim but the correct computation of exemption. The Tribunal also observed that a previously relied-upon decision by the CIT(A) in Dawat Institute of Dawoodi Bohra Community had been recalled. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the computation of income made by the assessee and allowed the grounds of appeal. The operative direction was to allow the claim for accumulation and recalculate the deficit accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the AO had correctly recorded his satisfaction for invoking Rule 8D and that the case was fit for its application. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had erred in calculating the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) by not considering only investments that earned exempt income.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance is not permissible, and 12.5% strikes a balance given the grey market purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of professional charges and sales promotion expenses due to lack of substantiation. The appeal was partly allowed, implying some grounds were accepted while others were dismissed.