Loading ITAT cases…
493 orders · Page 9 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to allow set-off of the Gross Profit already shown by the assessee from the net addition of 12.5% on account of bogus purchases. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. It reasoned that while the purchases might not be entirely bogus, the profit element embedded in them could be taxed due to unverifiable parties and potential over-invoicing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 13.71% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal agreed that while the purchases were not genuine, only the profit element embedded in them should be taxed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which restricted the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal agreed that while the genuineness of the parties could not be established, the purchases themselves were not entirely bogus, and only the profit element should be taxed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to allow set off of the Gross Profit already shown by the assessee from the net addition of 12.5% on account of bogus purchases. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element embedded in the non-genuine purchases at 4% and restrict the disallowance accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the description in the books of account is not determinative of the true nature of a transaction. Given the amended partnership deed and the tax audit report indicating real estate dealings prior to the land purchase, the classification as a fixed asset was considered an inadvertent mistake.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the assessee's own case. The rental income was confirmed as business income, and consequential interest expenditure was allowed as a business expense.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal found that the addition of 12.5% on bogus purchases was on the higher side for the nature of the assessee's business. It directed that the addition be restricted to 6.5% to serve the ends of justice.
The Tribunal noted contradictory directions in previous orders regarding the disallowance percentage. Following the order in the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 12% of turnover.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee relied on a previous Tribunal decision with identical facts and issues. The Revenue failed to provide any contrary decision or distinguish the facts. Therefore, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of 12.5% on suspicious purchases was fair and reasonable, considering the assessee received materials and made payments through banking channels, despite failing to produce suppliers. The appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that letters of comfort without financial liability do not constitute an international transaction under Section 92B. It also ruled that the dealer trip scheme expenditure was for business expansion, had TDS deducted on payments to the travel agent, and was allowable based on consistency.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) and 80P(2)(c)(ii) by the CPC under Section 143(1) was not permissible as it did not fall under the specified adjustments. Furthermore, the assessee was wrongly treated as a cooperative bank, and the denial of deductions was unsustainable on merits.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. This was based on the assessee opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and receiving a certificate from the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the services rendered by the AE. Following its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years, the Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, following the decision of the Madras High Court. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement was not favorable.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, following the decision of the Madras High Court. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement was not favorable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act for dispute settlement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee could seek revival of the appeal if the matter was not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, following the decision of the Madras High Court. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement was not favorable.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, citing the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was made with liberty to recall the appeal if the assessee did not succeed under the scheme.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the scheme declaration did not reach a conclusion.
The Tribunal accepted the suggestion of the learned representatives to dispose of the appeals. It was acknowledged that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeals are required to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which had restricted the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases. This decision followed a precedent set in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09.
The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year, a similar partial disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the authorities below based their orders primarily on investigation wing findings without proper adjudication. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed an actuarial valuation report for the gratuity liability. To ensure natural justice and allow the AO to verify the claim, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for limited verification.
The Tribunal accepted the suggestion of the learned representatives to dispose of the appeals. It was acknowledged that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, related appeals are required to be withdrawn.
The assessee opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on this settlement.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeal. However, the assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if their declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme was not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified. The addition should be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.
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 rejected the adjournment application due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to recall it if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal accepted the suggestion of the learned representatives to dispose of the appeals. It was acknowledged that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeals are required to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act for dispute settlement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to recall the order if the declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, citing the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to recall the appeal if unsuccessful in the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) was made on an estimated basis without establishing a direct nexus with exempt income, making it a debatable issue. Therefore, the assessee could not be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income solely based on this disallowance.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and, following a similar High Court order, treated the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition. The condition allows the assessee to seek restoration of the appeals if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition. The condition allows the assessee to seek restoration of the appeals if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Madras High Court and dismissed the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if their declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme was not accepted.