Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 4 of 10
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 Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, following the Gujarat High Court's precedent. It acknowledged that while payments were by cheque, the surrounding circumstances indicated accommodation entries.
The Tribunal held that while the disallowance of purchases was justified due to the failure to substantiate their genuineness, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation was unproved but not disproved, and the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of accounts.
Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to restore it if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement is not finalized or accepted.
The tribunal, considering the assessee's intention to utilize the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a High Court decision, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is deemed void.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly verifying if notices were received by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that a portion of the disputed purchases pertained to fixed assets, not profit and loss account items.
The Tribunal held that for purchases from parties who denied sales to the assessee, an opportunity for cross-examination should have been provided. For purchases from a party where similar disallowances were restricted to 6% in a prior year, the same treatment was applied. Ad-hoc disallowances for labour charges were deleted as the AO did not provide sufficient reasons for disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly brought to tax the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases by estimating it at 30%. The Tribunal relied on High Court judgments stating that only the profit element, not the entire purchase price, can be added when purchases are not entirely bogus but from unverified parties.
The Tribunal held that in case of vacant property, ALV should be calculated on the basis of municipal rateable value, following previous decisions and High Court rulings. The distinction made by the CIT(A) was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was invalid, as it was based on insufficient information and lacked a proper 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. This followed a High Court ruling on a similar issue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot disallow an amount that the assessee has not claimed as a deduction. Since the assessee had only claimed purchases to the extent recorded in its books, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases from suspect parties were not genuine, the purchases themselves could not be doubted as the assessee's sales were not doubted. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The assessee is granted an opportunity to appear before the CIT(A) and produce necessary documents to substantiate their case.
The tribunal noted that both parties agreed to the assessee's request to withdraw its appeals to avail the VSVS benefit. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases, estimating it at 12.5%. The Tribunal agreed that only the profit, not the entire amount, should be taxed in such cases.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following the precedent of the Madras High Court, the appeal was dismissed with liberty to restore it if the scheme declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the disallowance to 3% of bogus purchases, considering that the assessee's sales were not doubted and following established guidelines for the industry.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The assessee can seek restoration of the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas scheme does not resolve the matter.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had made corresponding sales and offered profit on them, only the profit element in non-genuine purchases should be added. Following a previous decision in the assessee's own case, the disallowance was restricted to 5% of the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Pr. CIT v. Jakharia Fabric (P.) Ltd., held that the profit element embedded in bogus transactions should be added to the income. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was set aside.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's application for withdrawal of appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the no objection from the Revenue, decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is deemed void.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting the assessee's application under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the application is not accepted.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to restore it if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement is not favorable or accepted.
The Tribunal held that a precondition for disallowance under Section 14A is the earning of exempt income. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, no disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme resolution was not in their favor or if the department did not accept the application.
The Tribunal held that the income from cloud hosting services and software updates cannot be construed as royalty under Article 12 of the India-Finland tax treaty. The retrospective amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act cannot be read into the tax treaty.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement was not finalized or accepted.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of purchases. The CIT(A) had elaborately considered the submissions and evidence, noting the lack of specific details from the AO regarding the parties and verification for the purchases.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement was not finalized or accepted.
The Tribunal decided that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to restore it if the scheme's outcome was not in the assessee's favor.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the issue was already decided in the assessee's favor by the Tribunal in its own case for the same assessment year.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 50C, particularly the third proviso allowing a variation of up to 10% between sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, are curative and retrospective in nature. Therefore, the actual sale consideration should be accepted when the variation is within this limit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the explanation provided as a reasonable cause. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal as per the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The revenue's appeal was also dismissed as infructuous due to the scheme's provisions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object.
Following a Madras High Court order, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn since the assessees opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Assessees are granted liberty to seek restoration of their appeals if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the department had issued Form-3 as acknowledgment. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue became infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and revenue's appeals as withdrawn. This dismissal was subject to the condition that appeals could be revived if the matter was not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and the revenue's appeals as withdrawn. This dismissal was subject to the condition that if the matter was not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, both parties would have the liberty to seek restoration of their appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the AO's method of estimating rental income at 8% of the property value was not in accordance with judicial principles. The assessee's approach of offering rent based on municipal valuation was deemed correct.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The condition allows for the revival of the appeal if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The assessee can seek restoration of the appeal if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
For AY 2013-14, the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. For AY 2014-15, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication due to lack of clarity on capitalization of expenses.