Loading ITAT cases…
493 orders · Page 1 of 10
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. As the scheme resolves the dispute, the appeal is required to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submission and the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the Act is deemed void.
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 noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The departmental representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request and the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the Act is deemed void.
The Tribunal acknowledged the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. As the departmental representative did not oppose the withdrawal, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submission and the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the Act is deemed void.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as per the assessee's request, citing the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the Act is deemed void.
The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to 12% of the inflated expenses and 12% of the on-money receipts, aligning with the settlement commission's order for identical facts in group cases. The CIT(A)'s ad-hoc disallowance of 25% was not followed.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal ex parte on the first hearing without affording a reasonable opportunity to be heard, especially considering the assessee had died and was substituted by a legal heir. This violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the AO was convinced that the assessee had purchased goods and made corresponding sales. Following a previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 3% of the alleged non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal, following its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10, held that the interest expenditure should be allowed as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the 15% interest paid to related parties was not excessive or unreasonable, considering that these were long-term loans and the assessee avoided additional costs and collateral requirements associated with bank loans. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal acknowledged this request.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the variance between the assessee's declared value of tenancy rights and the DVO's valuation was marginal (2.81%) and within tolerable limits. Therefore, the AO was directed to accept the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the profit element of the purchases, finding that the goods had entered the assessee's stock. The entire purchases could not be disallowed if the source was not conclusively proved.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. This was because the goods were utilized in manufacturing and resulted in sales, so only the profit element should be added.
The Tribunal held that since the addition was restricted to 20% of non-genuine purchases by a prior Tribunal order, it indicated doubt about the source of purchases rather than concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee failed to fully prove the genuineness of purchases but noted that the sales were not doubted, implying the purchases must have occurred. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance from 12.5% to 5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases, deeming it fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn due to the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to restore the appeal if the declaration under the scheme is declared bad in law.
The Tribunal held that no penalty could be levied on an addition made on an estimated basis. The CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty was upheld, as there was no material to sustain the plea of concealment beyond the rejection of the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the earnest money deposit with MCGM requires thorough examination. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that mutual fund investments not yielding exempt income should be excluded from the average value of investments for Section 14A disallowance. It also directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim regarding the amount reflected in Form 26AS.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the tax dispute. Consequently, the appeal was treated as dismissed and withdrawn.
The Tribunal found the disallowance of 12.5% to be on the higher side, considering the normal profit rate for trading in non-ferrous metals is between 2% to 5%. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to 5% of the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal found that the disallowance of 12.5% of non-genuine purchases was on the higher side, considering the profit margins in the trading of metals. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made merely on the basis of estimations. Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and estimations do not constitute concrete evidence of concealment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Since the assessee's dispute was settled under the scheme, the Revenue's appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the disputed purchases. It reasoned that since corresponding sales were not disputed, only the profit element in such purchases could be added back.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that similar issues in prior assessment years had been decided in favor of the assessee by the ITAT. The Tribunal found no cogent evidence to prove the business loss was bogus and that the AO had failed to provide the assessee an opportunity to rebut adverse material.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was considered infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior ruling in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, which was also confirmed by the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal held that LIBOR plus 2% on monthly closing balances is the appropriate rate for benchmarking interest on loans to associated enterprises.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The assessee has the liberty to approach the tribunal for restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the penalty appeal would not survive if the quantum appeal was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal found that the departmental authorities had not properly examined the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The issue of re-characterization was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was accepted and Form-3 was issued by the Department. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to ₹4,00,000, considering the VAT rates and potential VAT savings, to be fair and reasonable. The Tribunal upheld this decision.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases. The Tribunal agreed that while the assessee couldn't conclusively prove the source, the purchases were not entirely disputed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas application was not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and, with the consent of the Revenue, dismissed the appeals. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the scheme application was not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and, with the consent of the Revenue, dismissed the appeals. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the scheme application was not accepted.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to have it restored if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal treated the appeals as dismissed and withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the declaration under the scheme is declared bad in law.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, there was no necessity to keep the appeal alive. The appeal was dismissed.