Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 8 of 9
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the addition was solely based on a retracted statement and lacked corroborative material. The Assessing Officer's failure to refer the matter for valuation was also considered a fatal error.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was unclear regarding the opportunity of hearing and consideration of submissions. It also noted a discrepancy in the limb of Section 271(1)(c) used by the AO versus the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to avail the benefits of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted for restoration of the appeals if the scheme's outcome was not favorable.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, disposed of the appeal with liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if their declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted. The Registry was directed not to insist on condonation of delay for such an application.
The Tribunal, relying on a similar decision for a sister concern, set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and decided the issue in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that some grounds were not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not sought a remand report from the AO on the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Both parties agreed to set aside the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to avail the benefits of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted for restoration of the appeals if the scheme's outcome was not favorable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that no appeal should be filed where the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs. This circular is also applicable to pending cases.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the order in a mechanical manner without appreciating the evidence and submissions. The issues required fresh adjudication on merits.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to revive it if the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme resolution fails. This was done with the consent of both parties.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities constituted a solid waste management system, an eligible infrastructure facility under Section 80-IA(4). The Tribunal found that the assessee performed substantial work in solid waste management and fulfilled the conditions for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that while electronic filing was prescribed, the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits, especially since an electronic appeal was filed before the appellate order. Justice should not be sacrificed for hyper-technicality.
The tribunal, following a High Court order in a similar case, treated the appeal as withdrawn since the assessee opted 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, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, disposed of the appeal with the liberty for the assessee to file a miscellaneous application for recall if their declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal, following a Madras High Court order, with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if their declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted. The Registry was directed not to insist on condonation of delay for such restoration.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's claim of no international transactions was pending before the DRP, it was premature to impose penalties. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases at 12.5%. It reasoned that since the sales were proved, taxing the profit was just and fair, aligning with previous tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities constituted a solid waste management system, an infrastructure facility as defined under Section 80-IA(4). The Tribunal also noted the consistency of deduction allowed in earlier years and the nature of the contracts.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if the VVS Scheme declaration was not in the assessee's favor.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they are opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to restore them if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not have jurisdiction to disallow additions to WIP that were made in earlier assessment years. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision on an identical issue.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a 12.5% disallowance is deemed appropriate to cover the profit element.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be considered a cooperative credit society and not a cooperative bank, based on its activities being confined to its members and the lack of an RBI license. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
Following a Madras High Court order, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee chose to resolve the dispute under 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 appeal, following a precedent where appeals were disposed of when the assessee intended to use the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the scheme's declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivaad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's sales, the entire bogus purchases could not be added. Only the profit element embedded in such transactions should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not entirely bogus, they were likely procured from the grey market in cash. Therefore, a profit margin of 10% on these purchases was estimated and added to the income.
The Tribunal held that the write-off was justified due to exceptional circumstances like labour unrest, factory closure, and the perishable nature of the goods. It also noted that the stock was included in closing stock of prior years, and the write-off did not impact the current year's taxable income.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw their appeal. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' application did not mature.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee filing a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, with a liberty to revive the appeals if the matter was not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases. Since no new material was presented, the estimation of 12.5% profit by the lower authorities was confirmed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to appear and provide evidence, despite opportunities. The CIT(A) had granted some relief on alternative grounds but confirmed the addition related to gross profit on local sales. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus under Section 68 regarding the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. However, considering the assessee's efforts, the issue was remitted back to the AO for another opportunity to prove the credit.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the low tax effect of the appeal, which was below ₹.50 Lakhs, rendering it not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that it ought to have been condoned on the basis of reasonable cause. The Tribunal also held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It held that principles of natural justice require providing the assessee another opportunity to present their case with evidence before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and sought to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, dismissed the appeal with liberty to restore it if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration is not accepted. This approach aligns with the scheme's intent to resolve disputes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing confirmations, PANs, bank statements, and audited financial statements of the lenders/investors, demonstrating their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. The revenue failed to rebut this evidence.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they are opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to restore them if the scheme application fails.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they are opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to use the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Since the appeal would serve no purpose if kept pending, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions against which the penalty was levied were substantially deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty would not survive. The remaining addition of Rs.3.02 Lacs was considered notional, and penalty could not be levied on such notional additions when there was full disclosure of income.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the matter was not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and would be applying for it. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
Following a Madras High Court order, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, disposed of the appeal as withdrawn because 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 Revenue's appeal as the tax effect of the disputed addition was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied.