Loading ITAT cases…
610 orders · Page 7 of 13
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The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn.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The Tribunal treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn, following a Madras High Court order in a similar case where the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome is not favorable.
The Tribunal, following a precedent from the Madras High Court, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn, allowing liberty for restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme outcome is unfavorable.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of by treating it as withdrawn.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The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 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.
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 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, 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 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 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 penalty order was invalid because the AO failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. This defect was considered fatal and incurable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) by following the order in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year. The Tribunal found that the AO had not adequately verified the purchase invoices and payment evidences.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and had filed the necessary applications. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and had applied under it. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the grounds related to bogus purchases to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. It also directed the Assessing Officer to dispose of the assessee's rectification application regarding brought forward business losses.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to restrict disallowances by estimating profit at 5% of the disputed purchases, considering the assessee provided bank statements for cheque payments but lacked other supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the activities of organizing seminars were incidental to the primary objective of promoting internet and e-commerce. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's registration under Section 12AA had been restored, and a co-ordinate bench had previously held that holding seminars alone does not constitute commercial activity.
The Tribunal held that since the addition was made on an estimated basis due to non-production of suppliers, and the assessee had produced purchase vouchers and made payments through banking channels, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. The conduct of the assessee was not found to be contumacious.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received settlement certificates under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that only the profit embedded in disputed purchases can be taxed. The CIT(A) rightly restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition of 2% of bogus purchases, following its own precedent in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to compute additional profit at 12.5% on bogus purchases but allowing set-off of the Gross Profit (GP) already shown in the regular books of accounts for these purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and had filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the pen drive, recovered from a third party, could not be relied upon for additions without corroborating material. Additions on account of on-money for subsequent years were not justified without independent evidence. The addition for unaccounted jewellery was partly allowed with telescoping benefits.
The Tribunal held that the pen drive, recovered from a third party, could not be relied upon for additions without corroborating material. Additions on account of on-money for subsequent years were not justified without independent evidence. The addition for unaccounted jewellery was partly allowed with telescoping benefits.
The Tribunal held that the surplus in the shareholders' account is taxable as part of the life insurance business under Section 44. It also held that Section 14A is not applicable to insurance businesses governed by specific provisions. The Tribunal further ruled that negative reserves do not give rise to distributable surplus.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. It agreed that only the profit embedded in such transactions should be taxed, and the CIT(A)'s estimation was reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271G was unsustainable because the TPO ultimately accepted the assessee's benchmarking under the TNMM method and made no adjustment to the ALP. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided explanations for practical difficulties in furnishing certain segment-wise details, especially in the diamond industry.
The Tribunal held that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to move an application to recall the order.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the assessee's claim for cost of improvement as no documentary evidence was provided.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and had applied under the scheme. Since no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following its own previous decision in the assessee's case for an earlier assessment year. The assessee was directed to cooperate by furnishing necessary information.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 5%. This was based on the fact that similar disallowances in prior years were also restricted to 5% and accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition for bogus purchases, noting that a 100% disallowance is not justified when sales are not doubted. The Tribunal also dismissed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee's conduct was not contumacious.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It was noted that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance is not justified, and 12.5% meets the ends of justice in this case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal was incorrect as the electronic filing rule was not in existence for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal further noted that penalty on bogus purchases, where vouchers and banking channels were used, is often deleted in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that the payments to foreign airlines for airfreight are not taxable in India as per Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Therefore, the assessee had no obligation to deduct TDS, and the disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) were not justified.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, disallowing the entire purchases was not justified. The AO's estimation of profit at 12.5% was also considered high for the nature of the business.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as he had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that brought forward business losses can be set off against capital gains arising from the sale of business assets, even if taxed under the head 'Capital Gains', as long as the gains are from a business carried on by the assessee. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal found contradictory observations from the revenue authorities regarding the availability of information about the lender's work-in-progress. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.