Loading ITAT cases…
610 orders · Page 6 of 13
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, allowed the withdrawal of appeals with liberty to restore them if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, the estimated profit of 12.5% was on the higher side. Considering the trade and the assessee's own case, the profit was restricted to 7.5% on bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It reasoned that manufacturing cannot occur without inputs, and while a one-to-one correlation might not be possible, the CIT(A)'s restriction was reasonable.
Following the Madras High Court's decision, the ITAT dismissed the appeal, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the scheme declaration is not favorable. The assessee can file a miscellaneous application for restoration if their declaration is not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the Revenue.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de novo examination to determine the year of actual receipt for taxability. The challenge to the penalty notice was dismissed as premature.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal found that while the purchases were bogus, the estimated profit rate of 12.5% was on the higher side. It reduced the profit rate to 6.5% on bogus purchases, modifying the impugned order.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities correctly estimated additions against suspicious purchases. No new material was presented to warrant interference with the estimation of gross profit ratio.
The Tribunal held that the facts of the case were similar to the Bombay High Court's decision in Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. Therefore, the addition should be restricted to bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on disputed purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the revenue.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is opting for resolution of dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Following a similar High Court order, the Tribunal treated the appeal as disposed of by withdrawing it.
The tribunal held that since the assessee has opted for and been accepted under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Revenue's appeal has become infructuous. The appeal is dismissed with liberty to revive if the assessee fails to honour the commitment.
The Tribunal, following a precedent from the Madras High Court, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favour.
The tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and had filed the necessary applications. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of 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 is not in their favour.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on income that is estimated. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had correctly deleted the penalty on this basis.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of by being withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that for computing depreciation, the Written Down Value (WDV) of a block of assets should be reduced by the actual sale price of the asset, not the stamp duty value. Section 50C is not applicable for this purpose.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases. The CIT(A) had relied on judicial pronouncements to estimate the suppressed profit element.
The Tribunal agreed with both parties that the appeal was not maintainable. This was based on a CBDT circular directing withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/-.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of by treating it as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favour.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn, following a similar High Court order 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 penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on an addition made on an estimated basis. The estimated profit from alleged grey market purchases does not necessarily imply conscious concealment of income.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for default and is bound to decide it on merits. Since the CIT(A) failed to do so, the matter was remanded back.
The tribunal, while acknowledging the Revenue's plea, decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity for a hearing before the CIT(A) based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored for re-adjudication.
The tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's non-appearance, decided to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A) based on the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored the issue of TDS on VISA card fees to the CIT(A) for ascertaining facts regarding its reimbursable nature. For the write-back of provision for Card NPA, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to a deduction while computing book profits under Section 115JB, following its earlier decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases. The CIT(A) had considered the evidence and judicial pronouncements, estimating the suppressed profit element.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of 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, following a precedent from the Madras High Court, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The tribunal, while acknowledging the Revenue's plea, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) based on the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular relied upon by the Revenue applies only to quantum assessment proceedings and not to penalty proceedings. Penalty and assessment proceedings are distinct.
The tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, dismissed the appeals. However, the assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the declaration under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular's exception applied only to quantum assessment proceedings, not penalty proceedings. Penalty and assessment proceedings are distinct and separate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A. It relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Maxopp Investment Ltd. that disallowance cannot exceed exempt income and cannot be invoked if no exempt income is earned.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision, granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the declaration under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme was not accepted. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the revenue to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order on similar circumstances, treated the appeals as disposed of by being withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favour.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases. The CIT(A) had relied on judicial pronouncements to estimate the suppressed profit element.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted to settle the litigation under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, there was no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the appeals were disposed of as withdrawn.