Loading ITAT cases…
310 orders · Page 2 of 7
The Tribunal held that since the assessee furnished all supporting documents and the AO found no defects, the ad-hoc disallowance was unjustified. Following a previous decision in the assessee's own case, the disallowance was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished complete particulars of its income and had not concealed any income or filed inaccurate particulars. The decision to offer the income for tax was to avoid litigation and not due to concealment.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue's acceptance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans and the disallowance of interest. The evidence presented by the AO indicated that the loans were not genuine and were part of a circular transaction.
The Tribunal found that the delay was not a wanton act and was due to technical difficulties and work pressure, which constituted a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal concerning the interest disallowance was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was premature. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. This was in light of the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form No. 3 by the Revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to adopt the DVO's valuation as it was lower than the stamp duty authority's value and supported by judicial precedents. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be reasoned and based on relevant case laws.
The Tribunal held that the issue was already decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for previous assessment years, where similar receipts were treated as advances and not taxable until project completion. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that if the holding company has already deducted TDS on the salary component, the assessee is not required to deduct TDS on reimbursement without markup. The matter was remanded for verification of TDS deduction by the holding company.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the litigation under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal of the appeals, following the Madras High Court's decision. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was not favorable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals applies to penalty proceedings and the exception for quantum proceedings is not applicable. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and had filed an application. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings are distinct from quantum assessment proceedings. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which does not allow appeals in penalty matters below a certain monetary limit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing loan confirmations, bank statements, and IT returns of lenders. The Assessing Officer had failed to properly examine these aspects.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee stopped claiming depreciation and let out the property, it ceased to be a business asset. Therefore, the gain arising from its sale should be considered long-term capital gain after indexation.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the penalty amount fell below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The exception for quantum proceedings was not applicable to penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had settled both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal under the VVS Scheme, the penalty proceedings for which the appeal was filed would not survive. The penalty was accordingly deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not claimed any deduction for the prior period interest expenses. Since the interest was capitalized into the closing inventory and did not impact the profit or loss for the year, the disallowance was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. Since the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee was already more than the exempt income, no further disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
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 held that since the revision order, which formed the basis of the impugned assessment, was quashed, the CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment order. The possibility of the revision order being restored by higher courts was considered hypothetical.
The Tribunal held that since the revision order, which formed the basis of the impugned assessment, was quashed, the CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment order. The possibility of the revision order being restored by higher courts was considered hypothetical.
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 10(34) is available irrespective of Section 12A registration or fulfillment of Section 11 conditions for the assessment year in question. This is based on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s. Jasubhai Foundation.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, considering it a fair estimate of the profit element. The assessee failed to provide conclusive evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases. This was based on the fact that the AO doubted the source of purchases, not the purchases themselves, and relied on the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had received acceptance from the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a miscellaneous application if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow only the profit element embedded in the non-genuine purchases, estimating it at 12.5%. The entire purchases were not disallowed as the sales turnover was not disputed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) had not properly considered the assessee's replies and had overlooked some submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT (Exemption) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 10(34) is available irrespective of whether the assessee is registered under Section 12A or fulfills the conditions for exemption under Section 11. This position is supported by the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT had reproduced the assessee's submissions but failed to address or reject them, rendering the revision order non-speaking. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the PCIT for a proper finding on the submissions.
The Tribunal held that since the alleged undisclosed income was offered to tax in the immediately succeeding assessment year, there was no concealment of income. The explanations offered by the assessee were considered reasonable.
The Tribunal agreed with the legal principle that prior losses before the initial 80IA eligibility year cannot be reduced. However, due to a lack of crucial factual details regarding the business commencement and profit history, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the declarations under the scheme are not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and requested the appeal be treated as withdrawn. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that there was no necessity to keep the appeal pending as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed in limine with liberty to recall.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the PCIT under section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted the development agreement and the registered sale deed to the AO. The AO, after verifying these documents and the cost of acquisition, had accepted the assessee's computation of long-term capital gain. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had effectively acquired all rights, including the risk and reward of the property, from the date of the development agreement on April 18, 2006, even though the registered sale deed was executed later on October 8, 2012. The Tribunal referred to the principles laid down in Smt. Saroj Aggarwal v. CIT, emphasizing a natural perspective and avoiding a hyper-technical approach. It held that for the purpose of capital gains tax, the point of time at which the assessee holds the property is to be considered, not necessarily the date of the title deed. The Tribunal found no error in the AO's order, which was legally sustainable, and concluded that the property was a long-term capital asset. Consequently, the PCIT's order under section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee retains the liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme settlement does not attain finality.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme settlement did not attain finality.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form No. 3 by the Department.
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek restoration if the scheme declarations are not accepted. The revenue's appeals were dismissed due to low tax effect, with liberty to seek recall under certain conditions.
The tribunal held that since the assessee has applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Tax Scheme, there is no necessity to keep the appeal pending. Liberty was granted to recall the appeal if the dispute settlement is not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the issue was squarely covered by the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and the Gujarat High Court's decision in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that unabsorbed depreciation, as per amended Section 32(2), could be carried forward indefinitely.