Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 3 of 10
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 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.
Following the Madras High Court's precedent, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas scheme option was not exercised or if the department did not accept the application.
The Tribunal held that the right to obtain a conveyance of immovable property constitutes a capital asset. The cancellation of the agreement and receipt of compensation amounted to the extinguishment of rights in a capital asset, thus qualifying for capital gains treatment.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.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 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.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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 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 presence of prototype bills and a rubber stamp at the premises of a related entity was not sufficient evidence to make an addition. The Tribunal noted that income was subject to TDS and that similar additions in related cases were deleted.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and, following a Madras High Court decision, dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the presence of prototype bills and a rubber stamp at the client's premises was not sufficient evidence to make an addition. The Tribunal noted that the income was subjected to TDS and that similar additions in related cases were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the presence of prototype bills and a rubber stamp at the premises of a related entity was not sufficient evidence to make an addition. The Tribunal noted that income was subject to TDS and that similar additions in related cases were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the presence of prototype bills and a rubber stamp at the premises of a related entity was not sufficient evidence to make an addition. The Tribunal noted that income was subject to TDS and that similar additions in related cases were deleted.
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 noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to seek restoration if the scheme declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to seek restoration if the scheme declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the revenue can seek restoration of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to seek restoration if the scheme declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO could not be sustained. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the purchase and sale of shares, and the transactions were conducted through recognized stock exchanges and banking channels.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect of the quantum additions was below the monetary threshold limit of Rs. 50 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Following the Madras High Court's decision, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to seek restoration if the scheme declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. Accepting this request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal in light of opting for the VSV Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and, following a High Court precedent, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is deemed void.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases. This was because while the assessee failed to conclusively prove the source of purchases, corresponding sales were effected, indicating a doubt only regarding the purchase source.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to settle the disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the applications were not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration is not accepted.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, taking into account the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration is deemed void by the Department.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to settle under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the applications were not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to seek restoration if the scheme declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the entire bogus purchases could not be added as the assessee's construction activities were not doubted. The addition was restricted to 12.5% in line with High Court judgments.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases. This was because while the assessee failed to conclusively prove the source of purchases, corresponding sales were effected, indicating a doubt only regarding the purchase source.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission of a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the prayer to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object.
The Tribunal held that income from amenities provided to tenants is directly linked to the leased premises and should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property'. This decision followed previous rulings in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that income from amenities provided to tenants, being directly linked to the leased premises, should be treated as 'Income from House Property'. This decision followed previous rulings in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee voluntarily filed a revised return and offered the income to tax before any notice under Section 148 was issued, it cannot be held liable for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The penalty was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The assessee can approach the Tribunal for restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, finding no infirmity in the order. The CIT(A) relied on High Court decisions to estimate the profit element embedded in the transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit embedded in bogus purchases, not the entire amount, should be taxed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the tribunal held that the appeal should be disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to restore it if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement is not finalized or accepted. The tribunal emphasized that no condonation of delay would be required for restoration if the scheme's outcome is delayed.
The ITAT upheld the order of the CIT(A) which had restricted the disallowance to 25% of the non-genuine purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a partial disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of treating debenture money as income from sale of parking space was incorrect. It also noted that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate an alternative ground raised by the assessee regarding the cost of construction.
The ITAT upheld the order of the CIT(A) which had restricted the disallowance to 25% of the non-genuine purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a partial disallowance.