Loading ITAT cases…
493 orders · Page 2 of 10
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 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 held that Infobeans Technologies Ltd. cannot be considered a comparable due to its diversified activities and lack of segmental results. The Assessing Officer was directed to remove it from the list of comparables.
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 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.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the penalty appeal would not survive if the quantum appeal was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.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 held that education cess and secondary and higher education cess are deductible while computing income from business and profession, following various High Court and Tribunal precedents. The transfer pricing grounds were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not exigible when the additional income is disclosed in the return of income, even if it was surrendered during a survey. The concealment or inaccurate particulars must be in the filed return.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This decision was made after considering the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department's lack of objection.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) is invalid and cannot be cured by Section 292BB. Therefore, the assessment framed by the AO was quashed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. It directed to restrict the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to 5% of the purchase amount, considering the nature of the business and previous judgments.
The tribunal, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeal. However, the assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was not accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the ERP premium paid was allowed as an expense, indicating a nexus with the business. Therefore, the redemption amount received from the ERP has a first-degree nexus with the profits derived from the eligible industrial undertaking.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, noting the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration if the settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained certificates under the Vivad se Vishwas Act for the relevant assessment years. The revenue did not controvert this factual position.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance of expenses related to exempt income by considering the lesser of two methods: proportionate income theory or 0.5% of investment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing ESOP expenses as a deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It reasoned that once the substratum for the penalty (the quantum addition) was removed, the penalty proceedings could not survive.
The Tribunal held that since the sales were not disputed, it could be presumed that purchases were made from the grey market to save on indirect taxes. Therefore, profit estimation should be reasonable, considering industry standards and the assessee's disclosed profitability.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E fee can only be charged for delays in filing TDS statements after June 1, 2015. Since the default occurred prior to this date, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge the fee under Section 200A.
The Tribunal held that the AO had mechanically reopened the assessment based on information from the Investigation Wing without applying his own mind or conducting independent inquiry. Therefore, the reopening was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's alternative claim for deduction against business or house property income was made for the first time. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the source of purchases remained doubtful, the estimation of profit at 8% was excessive. It reduced the profit addition to 3% of the alleged non-genuine purchases, considering industry reports.
The Tribunal held that while the addition to income for bogus purchases was justified as the assessee failed to substantiate their genuineness, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. This was because the assessee had provided some documentary evidence and made payments through account payee cheques, and the circumstances were not conclusively indicative of concealment of income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought adjournment. Considering this, the Tribunal decided not to keep the appeal alive.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made on suspicion and conjectures without cogent evidence. The AO failed to discharge the onus of proving the payment of commission to bogus entry providers.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas application was not accepted, with delay to be condoned.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals pending before the Tribunal were treated as dismissed and withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the addition was made purely on an estimate basis due to doubts about the source of purchases, it cannot be concluded that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed.
The tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Madras High Court and disposed of both the assessee's and revenue's appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement was not finalized or accepted.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's application of the CUP method for benchmarking export transactions was unsustainable due to lack of strict comparability and selective approach. Similarly, the TPO's ad-hoc estimation for marketing, administrative, logistic support, and IT services was found to be against the prescribed methods.
The Tribunal held that the AO's ad-hoc disallowance of labour sub-contract expenses was not justified as no defects were found in the assessee's books and no incriminating material was found during the search. Similarly, the issue of bogus purchases was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by sustaining the addition on grounds not considered by the Assessing Officer, especially after accepting that Section 43CA was not applicable. The addition was deleted as no evidence of understatement of sale consideration was established.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department's acknowledgement of the declaration.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by a partner upon retirement from a partnership firm is not a transfer of a capital asset and therefore not taxable as capital gains. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal found that while the purchases were not genuine, the addition of profit at 12.5% was excessive. The addition was restricted to 5.5% over the Gross Profit declared by the assessee for the relevant assessment years.
The Tribunal, following its own previous orders in similar cases, restricted the addition on account of bogus purchases to 5% of the total purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeals for AY 1998-99 and 1999-2000 became infructuous as the assessee's declaration under the VSVS scheme was accepted. The assessee's appeal for AY 2000-01 was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, acknowledging that the corresponding sales were not disputed. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit.
The Tribunal found that while the purchases were not genuine, the addition of profit at 12.5% was excessive. The addition was restricted to 5.5% over the Gross Profit declared by the assessee for the relevant assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by a partner upon retirement from a partnership firm is not a transfer of a capital asset and therefore not taxable as capital gains. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases and suppliers, and notices to suppliers were unserved. However, it restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the addition based on the profit embedded in the bogus transactions, aligning with jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion on the same material available during the original assessment, and not on any fresh or new material. The Tribunal relied on its previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2006-07.
The Tribunal noted that the matters were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.