Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 7 of 9
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek revival of the appeal if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme is not successful.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing account confirmation, bank statements, and financial documents of the lender. The revenue failed to dislodge the assessee's claim with cogent evidence, and additions based on mere suspicion are not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the impugned purchases. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee could not fully substantiate the purchases, the AO had not doubted the correlating sales, and the addition should be limited to the profit element.
The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 5% of the purchase value, considering the assessee's average gross profit rate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the basis for reducing the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. It was noted that payments were made through banking channels, and there was no evidence of cash back. The Tribunal affirmed that taxing the profit embedded in such transactions was appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was time-barred due to the significant delay and the absence of a condonation petition or reasonable cause. Therefore, the appeal could not be admitted for adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following a Madras High Court decision where similar submissions were made regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the declaration under the Act was not favorable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. The addition for bogus purchases should be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same rate as genuine purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following a Madras High Court judgment where similar submissions were made. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application for restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement was not favorable.
Following a Madras High Court order, the ITAT treated the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to pursue resolution under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
Following the Madras High Court's decision in a similar case, the ITAT treated the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad se Viswas declaration is not accepted. Any delay in seeking restoration would be condoned.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction. The AO had already examined the issue in detail and satisfied himself with the assessee's claim, making the PCIT's attempt to form a different view unsustainable.
Following the Madras High Court's decision in M/s. Nannusamy Mohan (HUF), the Tribunal disposed of the appeal, allowing the assessee to pursue the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue can seek restoration if the scheme is not opted for.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of purchases, finding that the assessee failed to prove their genuineness. The reduction of the addition to 12.5% by the CIT(A) was considered reasonable, acknowledging that the goods might have been sourced from unverified channels.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as there was no escapement of income. The assessee had already been taxed on the same transactions multiple times, and the commission income should only be estimated on the sales turnover.
The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the revenue were covered by previous decisions of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Therefore, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had shortcomings in maintaining proper documentation for cash expenditure at construction sites, the disallowances made by the lower authorities were on the higher side. Therefore, a 25% disallowance of the total expenditure claimed under the three heads was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the AO must pass a separate speaking order to dispose of preliminary objections before completing reassessment. Since the AO failed to do so, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to pass a separate speaking order disposing of the assessee's preliminary objections before completing the reassessment rendered the reassessment order bad in law. Following jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment initiated beyond four years was bad in law as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that common administrative expenses should be allocated across all business activities, including the sale of TDR, based on gross revenue and closing Work-in-Progress. The deduction under Section 80IB(10) was recalculated based on this allocation.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of profit on non-genuine purchases at 12.5%, finding that the assessee failed to conclusively prove the source of purchases. The decision was based on information from the Sales Tax Department and the assessee's inability to furnish complete supporting documents.
The Tribunal found uncertainty in the departmental authorities' reasoning regarding the applicable section (68, 69, or 69A). It noted that the assessee's claim of cash deposits from household business and prior withdrawals was not properly examined, especially given her audited business accounts.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 was unsustainable. It was noted that the assessee did not maintain books of account, and a bank passbook cannot be considered as such for the purpose of Section 68.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance of ESOP expenses, following the Special Bench decision in Biocon Limited. It was held that ESOP discount is a mode of compensating employees and an allowable deduction under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance of ESOP expenses, following the Special Bench decision in Biocon Limited. It was held that ESOP discount is a mode of compensating employees and an allowable deduction under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance of ESOP expenses, following the Special Bench decision in Biocon Limited. It was held that ESOP discount is a mode of compensating employees and an allowable deduction under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance of ESOP expenses, following the Special Bench decision in Biocon Limited. It was held that ESOP discount is a mode of compensating employees and an allowable deduction under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance of ESOP expenses, following the Special Bench decision in Biocon Limited. It was held that ESOP discount is a mode of compensating employees and an allowable deduction under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance of ESOP expenses, following the Special Bench decision in Biocon Limited. It was held that ESOP discount is a mode of compensating employees and an allowable deduction under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below ₹.50 Lakhs and therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. No exceptions to the circular were applicable.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on loans obtained from directors for acquiring land for the business is an expenditure wholly and exclusively used for business purposes. Following its own precedent for the preceding assessment year, the Tribunal allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case for preceding assessment years. Following the consistent view of the Tribunal, the upward adjustment made by the AO/TPO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmatory letters from clients who owned up to the transactions and reflected profits in their returns. The revenue failed to provide any adverse material to disprove the genuineness of the modifications.
Following a Madras High Court decision, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to revive the appeals if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme is not successful.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering it to represent the profit element embedded in such transactions. This aligns with the Bombay High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as notices were issued to non-existent companies after amalgamation. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial documentation to substantiate the share capital receipts, discharging its onus.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of TDS credit by passing a speaking order, after giving the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing. This was done as the AO had not assigned any reasons for the short credit.
The Tribunal held that mere ad-hoc additions made on an estimation basis do not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the penalty was deleted.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if their Vivad Se Vishwas application is not accepted. This decision was based on a Madras High Court ruling.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on similar facts, held that the AO had not brought on record sufficient material to prove the client code modification was not genuine or that it resulted in shifting of profits. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that since the sales declared by the assessee were accepted, the purchases, though potentially bogus, must have existed to facilitate those sales. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment was not sustainable as it did not consider the return of income filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) also erred by enhancing the assessment under section 69A without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the sundry creditors were not bogus and that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not warranted as the balances remained unchanged, indicating no cash payments were made.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition. The assessee has the liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that payments for sub-brokerage fall under Section 194H and not Section 194J. Furthermore, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision to invoke Section 40A(2) for disallowance, finding no evidence of excessive or unreasonable payments.