Loading ITAT cases…
300 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of Gross Profit at 12.5% was on the higher side, considering the typical GP range for trading in metals. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 5% was found to be reasonable.
The Tribunal found the disallowance made by the AO to be on the higher side. The GP estimated at 12.5% by the CIT(A) was considered reasonable and accepted by the assessee.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the application solely based on the objects mentioned in the Memorandum of Association without considering the actual activities or allowing sufficient time for the company to commence operations. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had limited time between incorporation and application for registration.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable. It reasoned that if adding back the provisions in earlier years would have been revenue neutral (i.e., no additional tax payable due to higher normal tax liability), then the requirement to add back should not be strictly enforced, following a purposive interpretation.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the assessee's prayer.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory time limit, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the lender for the loan. For the mutual fund redemptions, the Tribunal noted that these were investments made in earlier years and the issue was covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not comply with the conditions of Section 271AAA(2) as no statement admitting undisclosed income and specifying its manner was made during the search under Section 132(4). A subsequent letter offering income was not considered sufficient compliance.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order enhancing the addition to 100% was unsustainable. It held that the profit element on bogus purchases should be assessed at 12.5%, as initially done by the AO.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for sales promotion expenses, finding that MCI guidelines were not applicable to pharmaceutical companies. The claim for cess deduction was restored to the AO for consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for sales promotion expenses, finding that MCI guidelines were not applicable to pharmaceutical companies. The claim for cess deduction was restored to the AO for consideration.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unsustainable due to the violation of natural justice principles, as the assessee was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were used against them. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the relevant provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and the proviso to Section 68 were introduced prospectively and were not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made on an estimation basis, as this does not constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty was justified.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue's representative also conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the lender for the loan. For the mutual fund redemptions, the Tribunal noted that these were investments made in earlier years and the issue was covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for low tax effect. For the assessee's appeals, it deleted additions related to revenue recognition based on consistent accounting methods. Other issues were either allowed, dismissed, or remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as it was based solely on information from foreign authorities without corroborative evidence and without providing the information to the assessee. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the assessee's statements.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing a cheque donation with a valid receipt from a registered trust. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiry to prove that the donation was returned in cash, relying only on the trustees' statements.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had made adequate inquiries and taken a possible view. The revision was based on borrowed satisfaction from an audit objection.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as it was based solely on information from foreign authorities without corroborative evidence and without providing the information to the assessee. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the assessee's statements.
The Tribunal held that the funds received from the company were not deemed dividend as they were part of ongoing business transactions. Regarding the agricultural land exemption, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the new claim under Section 54B.
The Tribunal held that while the PCIT validly assumed revisionary jurisdiction regarding the interest expenditure, the issue of whether the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the investment required factual verification. For the AY 2014-15, the Tribunal found the PCIT validly invoked revision jurisdiction for production expenses related to TDS compliance, though the AO ultimately disallowed a smaller amount.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as it was based solely on information from foreign authorities without corroborative evidence and without providing the information to the assessee. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the assessee's statements.
The Tribunal, following a similar order from the Madras High Court, treated the appeals as disposed of by being withdrawn. Assessees were granted liberty to restore the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that the appeal by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT. The Departmental Representative could not dispute this fact or provide any exceptions.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as infructuous because the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue had issued the relevant form, there was no necessity to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as dismissed and withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the scheme declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declarations were not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the basis of the AO's order (the Section 263 order) was quashed, the AO's order could not survive. The Revenue's request for revival of the appeal pending a High Court decision was rejected as premature.
The Tribunal held that 'on-money' not recorded in regular books of account could not be added under Section 68. The Tribunal also considered the net profit element and restored some issues for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal must be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the assessee's prayer.
The Tribunal, following its own earlier decision in the assessee's case, held that a profit element of 1% on the value of ingenuine purchases would be appropriate. The disallowance of conveyance, telephone, and travelling expenses was confirmed.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and the fact that a certificate under the Vivad se Vishwas Act was issued. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263. It also decided in favor of the assessee regarding the treatment of lottery winnings and the set-off of business losses against such winnings.
Since the assessee is not contesting the appeals due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 has been issued, the appeals filed by the Revenue are no longer necessary to be kept pending.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on its intangible right to collect toll, treating it as an asset. The claim for depreciation on the toll road itself, as a building, was not allowed.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was subsequently deleted by the Tribunal itself, the penalty could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the society commission was a statutory liability crystallized by an order of the Collector & District Magistrate, and therefore, allowable in the year of payment as per Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance by the AO and CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the reassessment order, which formed the basis for the Section 154 rectification, was quashed by the CIT(A), the rectification order could not survive independently. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 through the rectification order was vacated.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as the revenue did not object to the withdrawal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's absence, decided to grant another opportunity for the assessee to defend their case. The issue is set aside to the CIT(A) for a speaking order, with a direction to the assessee to provide substantiation.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to seek restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot deviate from the draft assessment order and suo motu drop proposed disallowances at the stage of finalizing the assessment under section 144C(3). The PCIT was justified in invoking revisionary powers.
The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the co-ordinate bench's consistent stand and approved the CIT(A)'s conclusions. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as the mistake in the return of income occurred due to bona fide professional advice and the assessee had made a genuine investment in a new flat. The explanation furnished by the assessee was accepted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. The notice was issued in a standard proforma without striking out the irrelevant clause, failing to inform the assessee of the specific charge.