Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 7 of 10
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the application is not accepted.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court in a similar case. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be brought to tax, not the entire amount. The estimation of disallowance at 30% by the CIT(A) was considered too high.
The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted due to the assessee producing self-made vouchers, the ad-hoc disallowance by the lower authorities was on the higher side. The disallowance was restricted to 5% of the expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to tax only the profit embedded in the bogus purchases, estimating the Gross Profit at 12.5%. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s findings to be in line with High Court judgments.
The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering that sales were not disputed and only the profit embedded in purchases should be taxed. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the turnover was accepted and books of account were not rejected, only the profit embedded in the bogus purchases should be taxed. The CIT(A) had correctly estimated the profit at 12.5%.
The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was valid, the estimated profit rate of 12.5% on bogus purchases was excessive. The profit rate was reduced to 6.5% considering the nature of the business.
The Tribunal held that the entire bogus purchases could not be added back as raw material is essential for manufacturing. Only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be taxed. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the grounds related to the royalty payment adjustment, finding that the issue was the same as in a previous year where the assessee's appeal was allowed. The grounds concerning intra-group services were also allowed, with the Tribunal applying its prior year's order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's investment in the Crescent Bay flat had a direct nexus with the capital gains received. The CIT(A) was correct in allowing the exemption for this property, as it is the assessee's choice to claim exemption on one property.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee the liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the matter was not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
Following a High Court precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeal 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 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, the assessee's right to revive the appeal was protected if the matter was not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is applicable only if exempt income is actually earned or receivable. Since the assessee had no exempt income, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that labor and electrical items required for installing windmills are eligible for 80% depreciation, as they are essential for the installation. It relied on High Court and Tribunal precedents that consider such works as part of the windmill block.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following the Madras High Court's decision, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal found that the Form-35 was indeed verified and digitally signed. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds was set aside.
The Tribunal found that notices were allegedly sent to the old address, not the new one provided by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the entity-level capital employed of the comparable company was correctly considered. It also held that the loss on revaluation of outstanding foreign exchange forward contracts as of March 31, 2009, was not a notional loss and was allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had granted partial relief by restricting the addition to 6% of the bogus purchases. Considering the smallness of the amount involved in the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal decided not to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the annual accounts for AY 2012-13 were not considered. The assessment was framed without considering these crucial documents.
The Tribunal held that the SAP license charges were a pure reimbursement of costs incurred by the assessee from a third party, not a profit-making transaction. Therefore, it was not taxable as income in India.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 20% of the bogus purchases, finding the Assessing Officer's estimation of 25% to be on the higher side. The Tribunal noted that a similar addition was accepted by the Department in a previous assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover advances to sister concerns and that these advances were made for commercial expediency to further the assessee's business. Therefore, the disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the Gujarat High Court's decision that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding a portion of the STCL disallowance. It directed the AO to allow the full short-term capital loss, finding that the genuineness of the transaction was not doubted and the consideration was agreed upon and received through banking channels.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. As the Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80IA, finding the parking lot to be an integral part of infrastructure. It also partly allowed the appeal on labour charges and Section 14A disallowances, directing specific amounts to be disallowed.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that adjustments not made in the draft assessment order cannot be made in the final order. It also ruled that disallowances under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income and cannot be added to book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to support the purchases. The AO's addition was based on presumption and guesswork rather than concrete findings, and the CIT(A)'s order was well-reasoned.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were not correctly initiated, as Section 153C should have been invoked for documents belonging to the assessee found in the possession of a third party. The Tribunal also found that Section 68 was not applicable as there were no credit entries in the assessee's books, and the additions were based on uncorroborated 'dumb documents'.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were not correctly initiated, as Section 153C should have been invoked for documents belonging to the assessee found in the possession of a third party. The Tribunal also found that Section 68 was not applicable as there were no credit entries in the assessee's books, and the additions were based on uncorroborated 'dumb documents'.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover advances to sister concerns and that these advances were made for commercial expediency to further the assessee's business. Therefore, the disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C is applicable to the transfer of development rights where the consideration is less than the stamp duty valuation. The assessee's contention that it was not a transfer of capital asset or that the consideration was higher was not accepted.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn, following the assessee's decision to opt 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 PCIT failed to establish that the payments to doctors were 'freebees' in violation of Circular 5/2012 or that the Section 14A disallowance was incorrect. The PCIT did not conduct the necessary inquiry to prove the order was prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that since the Revenue accepted the assessee's turnover, only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be taxed. The CIT(A) had estimated the Gross Profit at 25% on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that since the Revenue accepted the sales, only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed. The addition of entire bogus purchases was not justified.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional grounds, which raised a legal issue regarding the classification of capital gains as long-term. The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by precedent and allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the CIT(A) at 12.5% was on the higher side. Considering the assessee's declared GP and industry norms, the addition was restricted to 7.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid. The AO had conducted sufficient inquiries, and the PCIT failed to raise certain issues in the show cause notice, depriving the assessee of an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the CIT(A) at 12.5% was on the higher side. Considering the assessee's declared GP and industry norms, the addition was restricted to 7.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment under Section 147 when the case clearly fell under the provisions of Section 153A/153C due to a search conducted in another party's premises. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 147 was illegal and arbitrary.
The Tribunal allowed grounds related to disallowance of interest expenditure and addition for personal household expenses, following its own prior decisions. However, it dismissed the ground challenging the mandatory levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee followed the Project Completion Method and had reduced the amount of regularisation charges in the computation of income for the year the project profits were offered, no disallowance was warranted in the impugned assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the non-registration of sale deeds should not deny the exemption as possession was proven and confirmed by the builder. It further held that prior to the amendment effective from AY 2015-16, multiple residential units could be considered as one residential house for Section 54F exemption.