Loading ITAT cases…
610 orders · Page 12 of 13
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declarations under the DTVSV Scheme and received acceptance from the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which allows for appeals with low tax effect to be treated as not maintainable, applies to penalty proceedings as well. Therefore, the appeal was considered not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition of Rs. 15 crores related to the Powai project had been deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the consequent penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) did not survive. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable. The revenue was given liberty to seek restoration if the tax effect was found to be beyond the limit.
The Tribunal held that the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. Considering the assessee's disclosed GP rates, an addition of 12.5% was deemed unfair. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 5% on the bogus purchases.
The ITAT decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Departmental Representative could not dispute this fact or point to any exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the limit fixed by the CBDT. The revenue was unable to demonstrate that the appeal fell under any exceptions to the circular.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT. The appeal was dismissed on this preliminary ground.
The Tribunal held that merely because a claim made by the assessee was not accepted by the revenue does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. The Departmental Representative could not dispute this fact or point to any exceptions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adequately address the AO's findings and the investigation report, which indicated the absence of a separate undertaking. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue representative agreed that the appeal could be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a de novo decision. This was because the CIT(A)'s order did not confirm whether the notices for hearing were received by the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's letter and the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that they had received Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form 3. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It agreed that penalty cannot be levied on additions deleted by the ITAT and that the confirmed additions for old paintings did not warrant a penalty. The restoration of the jewellery addition also meant no penalty could be levied.
The Tribunal noted contradictions in the CIT(A)'s observations regarding the acceptance of loan creditors and the admission of additional evidence. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to discharge their duties properly. The addition was based on surmises and conjecture without sufficient verification, leading the Tribunal to set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to revive them if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this course of action.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's liberty to seek restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are not possible without purchases. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchases, reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee, would meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that mere rejection of a claim does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), especially when all aspects were disclosed and the claim was not ex facie bogus. The assessee's conduct was not found to be contumacious.
The assessee requested permission to withdraw the appeal as per the conditions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on ICDs should be treated as business income, making the alternative claim for deduction under Section 57(iii) redundant but allowable. Disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned. The issue of capitalizing interest to WIP was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme', the Revenue's appeal has become infructuous. The appeal is dismissed with liberty to revive if the settlement fails.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration is considered void by the Department.
The Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances without pointing out defects in vouchers or specific reasons are not sustainable in law. The argument of 'personal element' was also deemed legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the latest CBDT circulars. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, while keeping open the option for the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application if the issue fell under specific exceptions.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. It directed the AO to restrict the addition to the gross profit rate on such purchases, similar to genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the allotment letter dated 06.08.2010, along with part payment of consideration, constituted sufficient compliance for considering the date of allotment as the agreement date. Therefore, the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was attracted.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the declaration under the Vivad Se Viswas scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of a claim by the Assessing Officer does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), especially when there is no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee's conduct was not found to be contumacious, and the explanation for the interest income shortfall was accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request to settle the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement was unsuccessful.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had settled the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 3% of the bogus purchases, finding it judicious and fair. The Tribunal noted that a 100% addition was not justifiable, citing High Court decisions.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, treated the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The dismissal was subject to the condition that the appeal could be restored if the settlement failed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw their appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if the VSVS scheme application fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified. The addition should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.
The tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted and the Designated Authority issued Form-3. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be laconic and without application of mind, as it wrongly stated that the addition was solely due to non-production of suppliers and ignored the lack of evidence regarding consumption. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s powers are coterminous with the AO and directed a fresh, speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as the Assessing Officer lacked independent application of mind and did not dispose of the assessee's objections. Therefore, the reassessment order was set aside.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) should only consider investments that yielded exempt income during the year. It further directed that the disallowance should be restricted to the extent computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii), with an upper limit of the exempt dividend income earned.