Loading ITAT cases…
610 orders · Page 9 of 13
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Based on this, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, taking note of the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration was deemed void.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee had opted for the VSVS and filed a declaration. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the VSVS declaration failed to mature.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and decided to dismiss the appeal as infructuous. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration if the assessee's declaration is deemed void.
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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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. Since the assessee was pursuing settlement of the dispute, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's letter and their compliance with the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when an ad-hoc estimation is made, as in this case where the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 25%. Relying on various judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when an ad hoc estimation is made, as in this case where the profit element on purchases was estimated. Relying on various judicial precedents, it was concluded that such estimations do not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The ITAT dismissed the appeals, following a Madras High Court decision. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if their declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal agreed that the assessee was negligent but, in the interest of natural justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the VSV Scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, granting liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is not accepted. Any delay in seeking restoration would be condoned.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) who had restricted the addition to the peak purchases of Rs. 31,50,000/-, accepting the assessee's alternate plea. The Tribunal noted that the revenue's appeal on this issue had already been dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn due to their opting for the Vivadh se Vishwas scheme. The revenue's appeal was also dismissed for low tax effect, with liberty granted for restoration under specific conditions.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that a disallowance on an estimated basis due to non-production of suppliers does not automatically amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The conduct of the assessee was not found to be contumacious.
The Tribunal noted that identical issues in earlier assessment years for the same assessee were remitted to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to remit the current issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that expenditure made out of corpus funds cannot be claimed as an application of income, regardless of the object of expenditure. This decision was based on the ITAT's own previous ruling.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of a deduction does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee had provided documentary evidence for the donation, and there was no evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of a deduction does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee had provided documentary evidence for the donation, and there was no evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was based on surmise and conjecture without any cogent findings of anomaly. It was also noted that there is no presumption of a personal element in such expenditures.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal, upon which the penalty was based, had already been quashed by the ITAT on jurisdictional grounds, the penalty levied did not survive.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme to settle the dispute. Therefore, keeping the appeal alive would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263. The issue of share premium was not part of the reasons for reopening the assessment, and the AO had taken a plausible view based on the law then applicable. Furthermore, the revision order was found to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it well-reasoned and fair. The CIT(A) had correctly estimated the profit element at 14% on purchases from one supplier, while deleting additions for the other after the assessee provided new address and trail of goods, and the AO failed to issue a notice.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. Considering the gravity of the issues and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it fair and reasonable. The Tribunal noted that the average GP in the assessee's business is between 5.0% to 7.5% and the assessee had declared a GP of 5.25%.
The Tribunal held that since there was no exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A should be made. The voluntary disallowance made by the assessee was also directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that only the profit embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire purchase amount. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 12.5% profit on bogus purchases was found to be in line with the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to Rs. 7 lakh. The Tribunal found that this amount was based on the actual VAT payable and represented the tax savings achieved by the assessee through grey market purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding the AO's conclusion based on presumption and surmises without corroborative evidence. The entries were considered rough notes of a closed business, and the assessee's net worth was significantly higher.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the payments to banks for credit card transactions were not in the nature of commission or brokerage covered by Section 194H. Therefore, Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty, finding no infirmity. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the Assessing Officer could not controvert the CIT(A)'s findings with cogent evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if their declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act is considered void. Any delay in seeking restoration would be condoned.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's letter and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte without clear evidence of notice service. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to revive the appeal if the scheme declaration fails to mature.
The Tribunal noted that identical issues for a prior assessment year (2014-15) were decided in favor of the assessees, quashing the revision proceedings. Applying the same logic, the Tribunal held that the revision order for the current assessment year (2015-16) was also not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and received Form-3 from the Income Tax Department. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance as the bank had sufficient interest-free funds. It also upheld the exclusion of investments held as stock-in-trade from Section 14A computation, relying on High Court and Supreme Court precedents.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases, considering the facts and circumstances, including unserved notices and assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee to prove that the advances were trade advances and borrowed funds were used for business. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record his dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim regarding expenditure for exempt income before invoking Rule 8D. Since the AO failed to do so, the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings for mere verification of facts and not based on a prima facie belief that income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the issue of interest on refund and its computation under Section 244A had already been decided in the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year. Respectfully following that precedent, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the entire alleged bogus purchases could not be added when sales were accepted, and only the profit element should be taxed. The addition was restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, to which the assessee's representative agreed.