Loading ITAT cases…
310 orders · Page 4 of 7
The Tribunal held that the provision for redemption of preference shares was an ascertained liability and not a reserve. Therefore, it was correctly allowed as a reduction while computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee, as it exceeded the exempt income. Regarding Section 115JB, the Tribunal followed its own precedent and the High Court's decision, allowing the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the payments were merely reimbursement of expenses incurred by the non-resident for displaying the assessee's products in Kuwaiti supermarkets and promotional festivals. There was no element of supervision, control, or guidance that would classify the services as FTS.
The Tribunal held that notional rental income from unsold units held as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed under the head 'Income from house property'. It followed the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd., which is favorable to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering that the sales were not doubted and the decision was judicious. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that declining the assessee's claim for deductions and additions, in itself, does not attract penalty. Relying on established legal precedents, the Tribunal found the penalty unjustifiable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) decided the matter in the absence of the assessee and without providing an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was not justifiable and was liable to be set aside.
The Tribunal found that estimating the addition at 4% was too high given the profit margins in diamond trading. It reduced the addition to 2% of the total bogus purchases, considering the profit margin to be between 1% to 2%.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. It was held that when additions are made on an estimation basis, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable as there is no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, relying on its previous order in the revenue's appeal for the same assessment years. The Tribunal had previously confirmed the CIT(A)'s action of restricting the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases as fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' was accepted and the Designated Authority issued Form-3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 held that dividend income on which dividend distribution tax is paid is not part of total income and is exempt under Section 10(34). It also upheld the deletion of additions on account of negative reserves, following previous ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition for bogus purchases to 12.5% and also upheld the deletion of the addition under Section 14A, finding the CIT(A)'s decision to be judicious and correct.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that while the purchases were not from the specified hawala parties, the assessee likely procured goods from the open market at a discounted value. The addition was rightly restricted to the profit element.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, a co-operative credit society, was not a primary co-operative bank and therefore not hit by the provisions of Section 80P(4). Consequently, the assessee was eligible for the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not a beneficiary of the foreign bank accounts during the assessment years in question, as they were appointed as a beneficiary only after the relevant financial year and were later removed. Therefore, no addition could be made for these years.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and vitiated the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had already examined the issue of CAM charges and allowed the deduction. Therefore, the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263 as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and vitiated the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions for the assessee's own case for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11, restricted the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases, finding the facts to be identical.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and vitiated the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and vitiated the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and vitiated the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and vitiated the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and vitiated the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and vitiated the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and vitiated the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and vitiated the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and vitiated the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Revenue were already adjudicated by a coordinate bench in the assessee's cross-appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as infructuous, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on certain aspects.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was made on an estimated basis due to the non-production of suppliers, and the Assessing Officer did not issue notices to alleged bogus suppliers. Therefore, the assessee could not be penalized for concealment of income.
The Tribunal, following a similar order by the Madras High Court, treated the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that since purchase vouchers were provided and payments were made through banking channels, the assessee cannot be penalized under section 271(1)(c) for non-production of suppliers. The disallowance was made on an estimated basis, and the assessee was not guilty of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable when shares are issued in lieu of shares or in a barter system, as there is no actual inflow of cash. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submission regarding the DRS Scheme 2016 and payment of tax and penalty. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh speaking order after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and that the authorities below failed to conduct further verification. The Tribunal also noted that information from the Sales Tax Department did not conclusively prove the suppliers were bogus hawala dealers. Therefore, the disallowances were not sustained.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and that the authorities below failed to conduct further verification. The Tribunal also noted that information from the Sales Tax Department did not conclusively prove the suppliers were bogus hawala dealers. Therefore, the disallowances were not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was invalid because the reasons recorded for reopening the case (bogus long-term capital gains) were different from the actual addition made (unexplained investment in property). Therefore, the reassessment framed by the Assessing Officer was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Revenue were already adjudicated by a coordinate bench in the assessee's cross-appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as infructuous, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on certain aspects.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO's approach would lead to double taxation. The consistent application of the project completion method by the assessee and its acceptance in subsequent assessment years were considered crucial.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the issue of adjusting losses for Section 10B deduction is debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record, thus not rectifiable under Section 154.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement is not finalized. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty, citing the assessee's non-cooperative attitude and failure to appear or submit defenses.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 20% of the purchases. The Tribunal found that while the purchases could not be conclusively verified due to the supplier's unavailability, the documentary evidence and banking channel payments inspired sufficient confidence in the genuineness of the transactions.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the litigation under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the declaration is not accepted.