Loading ITAT cases…
310 orders · Page 6 of 7
The Tribunal held that the dividend income received by the non-resident assessee from an Indian listed entity was indeed exempt under Section 10(34) read with Section 115-O of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable, and there was no requirement for the assessee to file an Income Tax Return for this exempt income.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in reopening the case as the AO had tangible material indicating escapement of income. The estimated addition of 12.5% was considered fair and reasonable for tainted purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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, while acknowledging the assessee's non-appearance, decided to grant another opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as it fell below the monetary threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue's argument that the penalty should be covered by an exception clause was rejected.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged her onus by providing documentary evidence and the supplier's confirmation. The supplier's statement from a prior assessment year also supported the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that only the profit embedded in bogus purchases can be taxed, not the entire amount. The High Court's decision in PCIT vs Pramashakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's estimation of profit at 25% on bogus purchases was on the higher side, considering the nature of the assessee's business. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not controvert this fact.
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 noted that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending given the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme settlement did not attain finality.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be taxed, not the entire amount. The CIT(A) correctly estimated the profit at 12.5% based on the GP declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be taxed, not the entire amount. The CIT(A) correctly estimated the profit at 12.5% based on the GP declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had written off the debts in accordance with Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the amended provisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in TRF Ltd. The revenue did not dispute the fact that these amounts were reflected in the books since FY 2003-04.
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 assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 220, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeal challenging relief granted on unexplained investments was dismissed, following similar decisions for family members.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus cast upon it under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted all information before the Assessing Officer and that all transactions were routed through banking channels. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer should have investigated the information further and controverted the assessee's submissions or traced the sources of money. The Tribunal also noted the commonality of email IDs and board resolutions, but considered this as potentially due to common employment of a company secretary or accountant, which would not negate genuine transactions. The Tribunal relied on the decision of a coordinate bench in the case of M/s Arceli Reality Ltd. (ITA No. 6492/M/2016), where similar issues were considered and the assessee's appeal was allowed. Two of the investors in the present case were also investors in the cited case. The Tribunal agreed with the findings of the coordinate bench that the assessee had duly discharged the onus, and the onus had reverted to the Revenue to prove otherwise. The AO had merely relied on investigation wing information without independent enquiry. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue had not proved any mala fide actions by the assessee and that the addition made under section 68 was not justified. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since there was no variation in the returned income, the issuance of a draft assessment order was not legally required. Consequently, the assessment order passed beyond the time limit under Section 153 was quashed.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 220, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeal challenging relief granted on unexplained investments was dismissed, following similar decisions for family members.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to corporate guarantee commission, holding that the AO/TPO/DRP erred in their determination. It also upheld the assessee's benchmarking for interest on loans to AEs, finding the charged rate to be at arm's length. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to revive them if their declaration under the Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted. Liberty was granted to file a miscellaneous application for recalling the order without insisting on condonation of delay.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal at this stage, acknowledging the assessee's decision to avail the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme fails.
The tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was accepted and the Designated Authority issued Form-3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that interest expenditure on capital borrowed for business purposes, used for stock-in-trade (projects), is an allowable deduction. It also held that Section 79 of the Income Tax Act, regarding set-off of losses, was not applicable to the assessee as it was a company in which the public is substantially interested.
The tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to revive them if their declaration under the Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted. Liberty was granted to file a miscellaneous application for recalling the order without insisting on condonation of delay.
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 found that the assessee had primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels. Therefore, it was appropriate to estimate the profit element in these transactions.
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 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 scheme declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when purchase vouchers and banking channel payments are produced, and sales are not doubted. The assessee's conduct was not found to be contumacious.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's own funds exceeded the interest-free advances, and therefore, the advances were presumed to be from own funds. It also noted that the advances were to a subsidiary engaged in a similar business, implying business benefit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular is also applicable to pending cases.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's order, treated the appeals as withdrawn since the assessees chose to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Assessees are granted liberty to restore their appeals if the scheme's outcome is not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of exempt income. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
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 held that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act does not apply to the transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings. The decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs Greenfield Hotels and Estates (P) Ltd. was followed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition is based on an estimation for non-production of suppliers, and the assessee's conduct is not contumacious. The tax effect was also below the CBDT appeal filing limit.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when purchase vouchers and banking payments are supported, and sales are not doubted. The assessee's conduct was not found to be contumacious.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to support its claim regarding cash expenses. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, taking into account relevant case laws.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme declaration fails.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, treated the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the declaration is pending acceptance. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the gain on buyback of Euro Notes, issued for capital expenditure, is a capital receipt and not taxable. This decision followed the ratio of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Industries Ltd. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the interest disallowance was not justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds for its investments, following its own previous year's decision. The rent disallowance was also set aside as the premises were used for business purposes, supported by rent agreements.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme settlement was not finalized. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders for the scheme application.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be taxed, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was considered excessive.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was accepted. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.