Loading ITAT cases…
610 orders · Page 8 of 13
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on income that has been added on an estimated basis. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the penalty on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and had filed the necessary application. Therefore, it was deemed purposeless to keep the appeals pending.
The Tribunal noted that no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending as the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 25% of the bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance of purchases is not justified, as sales are impossible without actual purchases.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Based on this, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, deleting the penalty. It reasoned that the disallowance was made on an estimated basis, and the assessee had produced purchase vouchers and made payments through banking channels, thus not being guilty of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal rejected 'Celestial Biolabs Ltd' and 'E-Zest Solutions Limited' as comparables due to differences in services and lack of segmental information. It directed the exclusion of 'Acropatel Technologies Limited' for not meeting TPO's filters. For 'Softsol India Ltd', it directed the AO to compute the margin at 15% after excluding certain incomes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the 'Vivaad se Vishwas Scheme' and filed an application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition by estimating the profit at 12.5% of the bogus purchases. This estimation was found to be in line with High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the purchases were genuine because Arun Paper & Iron Traders confirmed the sales to the assessee and did not appear in the list of hawala operators. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The CIT(A) reduced the addition by considering the assessee's declared GP ratio of 5.05%. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld it.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it to be in line with jurisdictional High Court decisions. The assessee had accepted the restricted addition.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) considering only investments yielding exempt income. The issue of bad debt was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with additional evidence.
Following the Madras High Court's precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 12.5% on the bogus purchase transaction. This was found to be in line with jurisdictional High Court judgments regarding estimation of profit on such transactions.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal ex parte. To ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal restored the issue of royalty payment adjustment and the treatment of industrial promotion subsidy to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following its own precedents. The ground challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the additions, on which penalty was imposed, were made purely on an estimated basis, it cannot be concluded that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, the assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration filed under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) order was not in accordance with Section 251 of the Act and violated natural justice by not providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The order was set aside for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. It found that the assessee made a bona fide claim for deduction under section 80IB(10) and had submitted all relevant information. Therefore, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee is granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's estimation of profit at 24.8% to be on the higher side. The Tribunal considered the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 12.5% to be reasonable and justified.
The Tribunal held that for a society to be considered a cooperative bank, it requires a license from the RBI. As the assessee did not possess such a license, it could not be treated as a cooperative bank, and the disallowance under Section 80P(4) was unsustainable.
The Tribunal decided that keeping the appeal alive would serve no purpose as the assessee had already initiated the process to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
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's declaration under the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following a High Court precedent regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme application was not accepted.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the assessee can seek restoration of the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the issue was covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case and distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling relied upon by the Revenue.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, considering that the assessee's sales were not disturbed and it likely earned higher margins from grey market purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration if the settlement fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal at this stage due to the assessee opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme declaration fails to mature.
The Tribunal held that if the additions forming the basis of a penalty are deleted, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3. Accepting the assessee's request, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which allows for appeals to be treated as not maintainable if the tax effect is below a certain limit, applies only to quantum assessment proceedings and not to penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3. Accepting the assessee's request, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found the assessee's argument that the declared profit of 13.12% on alleged bogus purchases should be set off against the addition to be realistic. To meet the ends of justice, the issue was remitted back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of an estimated addition for non-production of suppliers, especially when payments were made through banking channels. The conduct of the assessee was not found to be contumacious.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when the disallowance is on an estimated basis due to non-production of suppliers, and the assessee's conduct is not contumacious. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was remitted, the penalty order related to the same addition should also be remitted to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to consider the penalty after deciding the quantum appeal.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to approach the tribunal for restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that accepting an addition for the sake of peace does not automatically imply concealment of income. The Assessing Officer failed to meet the conditions for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when the addition was based on estimation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of additions for bogus purchases. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect was below the threshold for revenue appeals, and information from DGIT(Inv.) was not considered an 'external source' for exceptions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, considering the assessee as a startup company. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents that allow expenses for new businesses, even if they result in initial losses or provide long-term benefits, as long as they are for business operations.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed, but with liberty to seek restoration if the declaration is deemed void.