Loading ITAT cases…
310 orders · Page 5 of 7
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable if no exempt income is received or receivable by the assessee during the relevant previous year. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order. Since the quantum addition was deleted by the CIT(A) on account of Section 80P deduction, the penalty imposed on that addition could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The exception in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 for external agency information applied only to additions, not penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that estimating profit on suspicious purchases was appropriate, especially since the sales were not in doubt. The 12.5% estimation was considered fair and reasonable.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the declarations under the scheme were not accepted.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 held that the assessee possessed primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels, indicating actual purchases. Therefore, it was appropriate to estimate the profit element in these transactions.
The tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-appearance, decided to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A) based on the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s approach of estimating additions at 12.5% on the purchases, finding that the assessee failed to conclusively prove the genuineness of the purchases.
The Tribunal, following a precedent from the Madras High Court, 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 permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivadh se Vishwas Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' and the declaration was accepted, the Revenue's appeals have become infructuous. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed as withdrawn.
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 held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated income. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee has opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous. The appeals are dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee has opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous. The appeals are dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the Revenue's submission, decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) based on the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned, holding that the AO's computation was not justified. For the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal deleted it upon finding sufficient compliance with the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal found the reassessment proceedings valid as the AO had tangible information suggesting escapement of income. The lower authorities' estimation of additions on account of suspicious purchases was deemed judicious.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivadh se Vishwas Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that once interest expenditure is accepted as business expenditure, the CIT(A) cannot arbitrarily restrict the interest rate without showing it to be unreasonable or for extraneous consideration. The restriction of interest to 12% was deemed arbitrary.
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 noted that the amounts received in earlier years were initially treated as loans and later converted into share application money. The Tribunal found that the share allotment in the subsequent year was at a premium, which was permissible. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue to the AO for fresh consideration.
The tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, decided to provide another opportunity based on the principle of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after a fresh hearing for the assessee.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue's representative also conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked tangible material to form a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. The reopening was based on a desire to verify the transaction rather than a belief of escapement, making the reopening invalid.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate an addition of 15% on the suspicious purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,25,997/-, and deleted the balance addition. This was based on similar additions made in previous assessment years.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal found the lower authorities' estimation of additions on account of suspicious purchases to be judicious, as sales were not doubted and primary purchase documents were available. The assessee's inability to conclusively substantiate purchases justified the addition.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's withdrawal letter and the fact that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) correctly estimated the addition at 4% on the bogus purchases. They also found no infirmity in the reopening of the case as the AO had tangible material indicating escapement of income.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as it was filed with a considerable delay and no condonation petition was on record. The appeal was considered defective due to the time bar.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2014-15, which was an abated assessment, the requirement of incriminating material for additions under Section 153A would apply. For other years, the additions were upheld based on the findings of the lower authorities, despite challenges regarding the validity of the notice and the evidence.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2014-15, which was an abated assessment, the requirement of incriminating material for additions under Section 153A would apply. For other years, the additions were upheld based on the findings of the lower authorities, despite challenges regarding the validity of the notice and the evidence.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2014-15, which was an abated assessment, the requirement of incriminating material for additions under Section 153A would apply. For other years, the additions were upheld based on the findings of the lower authorities, despite challenges regarding the validity of the notice and the evidence.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2014-15, which was an abated assessment, the requirement of incriminating material for additions under Section 153A would apply. For other years, the additions were upheld based on the findings of the lower authorities, despite challenges regarding the validity of the notice and the evidence.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2014-15, which was an abated assessment, the requirement of incriminating material for additions under Section 153A would apply. For other years, the additions were upheld based on the findings of the lower authorities, despite challenges regarding the validity of the notice and the evidence.
The tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The tribunal directed that 25% of the disallowed expenses be allowed, considering their recurring nature. The addition on account of the creditor's opening balance difference was deleted, as it pertained to earlier years and was a matter of reconciliation, not a cessation of liability.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had failed to prove the purchase transactions and that both lower authorities had passed reasoned orders. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
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 condoned the delay, citing the principle of natural justice, and restored the matter to the AO for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to attend proceedings diligently, failing which the AO could proceed with available material.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the declaration filed under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that since the sales turnover was not in doubt and the assessee had primary purchase documents, the profit element embedded in the transactions should be taxed. The CIT(A) had estimated the profit at 25%.