Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 2 of 10
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn and the revenue's appeal as infructuous, in light of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the Act is deemed void.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration and received acceptance from the Revenue under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the Vivad se Vishwas applications were not accepted.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the issues for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) to substantiate his claims with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 3% of the non-genuine purchases. The Tribunal agreed that while the source of purchases might be doubtful, the assessee had provided some supporting evidence, and the disallowance should reflect the profit element.
The Tribunal held that the non-mention of the auditor's name in the return of income was a technical oversight, and the audit report was filed before the due date of the return. Following a precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee employer cannot be faulted for not deducting tax at source on LFC when the employee's designated place was in India and the travel was by the shortest route, even if it involved a foreign leg. The Tribunal found the assessee's belief regarding exemption to be bona fide.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek revival of the appeal if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest and dividend income from investments in other cooperative societies was correct. It also found that the issue was covered by the Tribunal's own previous decisions in the assessee's case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal followed its own previous orders for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, where it was held that the AO failed to demonstrate the necessary satisfaction for disallowance under Section 14A. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not sustained.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. As there was no objection from the Revenue, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, reduced the addition by estimating the profit element at 7.61% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the assessee's declared GP ratio. Other grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were doubtful, the addition of 12.5% was too high. Following precedent, they directed the AO to estimate the income at 3% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that while the purchases from suspect parties were not genuine, the sales declared by the assessee were not doubted. Therefore, the disallowance should be restricted, following the Gujarat High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on additions made on an estimated basis, especially when the assessee possessed documentary evidence for purchases. The penalty was deleted as the additions were not conclusive for want of confirmation from suppliers.
The Tribunal held that the word 'a' in Section 54, prior to its amendment, could include plural residential houses, based on judicial precedents. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction on investments made in both properties.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that while the purchases from suspect parties were not genuine, the subsequent sales declared by the assessee were not doubted. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Smith P. Sheth, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s reduction.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed in the name of a non-existent entity due to the assessee's own error. However, to allow the appeal to be decided on merits, the assessee was directed to amend the appeal form or file a fresh one in the name of the new entity.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the payments were compensatory interest. However, it allowed the assessee an opportunity to prove that the payees had offered this income in their returns and paid taxes, which would exempt the disallowance.
The Tribunal, following a similar order from the Madras High Court, treated the appeal as disposed of by withdrawing it. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, relying on previous decisions in the assessee's own case. It held that entrance fees and voluntary contributions for infrastructure facilities received from members should be treated as capital receipts, not revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element in bogus purchases should be taxed. The CIT(A)'s reasoned order to sustain only 3% addition was found to be without infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was justified, as the deduction of interest paid on a loan against interest earned on FDRs is not permissible as per the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Dr. V.P Gopinathan. Therefore, the AO's order allowing such a deduction was indeed erroneous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the profit element (12.5%) of the bogus purchases, not the entire amount. This was based on the principle that only the profit embedded in such transactions is taxable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow 12.5% of the purchases as profit, considering it a reasonable profit rate in cases of unverifiable purchases where sales are not disputed.
The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the ITAT's previous directions and had not gone into the details of the head office expenses. Therefore, the issue was restored back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following a precedent from the Madras High Court, noted that the assessee is opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and had filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as disposed of by withdrawing it, following a High Court precedent regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was not favorable.
The Tribunal held that penalty is not automatic for every addition made in the assessment order and relied on judicial pronouncements stating that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings. The assessee's explanations, though not fully substantiated, were considered bonafide.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that penalty is not leviable when income is estimated and the assessee has disclosed all facts. Merely because a claim is not accepted by the Revenue does not attract penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that penalty cannot be levied merely on presumption of bogus purchases when sales and payments were not doubted. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by the AO, relying on judicial decisions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order as the revenue could not controvert the findings with cogent evidence.
The Tribunal found that while the AO had not doubted the sales, the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases. However, following precedents, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 12.50% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty. It held that initiating penalty proceedings on both charges simultaneously indicated uncertainty, rendering the penalty order bad in law. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that mere non-production of the supplier, when other evidence of purchases was provided, was insufficient to prove concealment of income.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declarations under the Vivad Vishwas Scheme and received a certificate. The revenue's representative concurred that the appeal had become infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to consider the revisionary order as infructuous. This was based on the fact that a coordinate bench had already quashed the same revisionary order for the relevant assessment years.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence. The Assessing Officer failed to bring contrary evidence, and reliance on a retracted statement was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings should be reckoned from the date of the order recommending penalty, not from the date of the show-cause notice. Following the Delhi High Court's decisions, the Tribunal found the penalty order to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the direct expenses were incurred in relation to earning taxable income, not exempt income, and thus should not be disallowed. It also found that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D(2)(iii) for disallowance on average investments.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of depreciation. The CIT(A) had noted that the machinery was financed by a bank loan, making it unlikely to be entirely bogus, and the AO had not made inquiries from the bank.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as the tax involved was less than the monetary limit specified by the CBDT. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.