Loading ITAT cases…
300 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeals. This was based on the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue issuing the necessary acknowledgement form.
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, holding that the revised return filed under Section 148, which excluded the bogus purchases, superseded the original return. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which restricted the disallowance to 5% of bogus purchases, considering the nature of trade, VAT paid, and lack of conclusive evidence of revenue leakage. The Tribunal found the AO's disallowance excessive and unreasonable.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which restricted the disallowance to 5% of bogus purchases, considering the nature of trade, VAT paid, and lack of conclusive evidence of revenue leakage. The Tribunal found the AO's disallowance excessive and unreasonable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases, considering that sales were not doubted and documentary evidence was provided. The Tribunal found this to be a reasonable approach given purchases were made from the grey market.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of bogus purchases, considering that sales were not doubted and purchases were made from the grey market. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's order in similar circumstances.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision, holding that the disallowance was unsustainable due to lack of positive evidence and violation of natural justice principles by not allowing cross-examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a coordinate bench's order in a similar case. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified, as purchases are necessary for sales. The 12.5% disallowance was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5%. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified, as purchases are necessary for sales.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a coordinate bench's order. It noted that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible, as sales are impossible without purchases. A 12.5% disallowance was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that society maintenance charges are not deductible from rental income as they are not taxes levied by a local authority. The actual rent received or receivable under Section 23(1)(b) only allows for deductions of municipal taxes and unrealized rent.
The Tribunal held that TNMM is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transactions, following the rule of consistency and previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The adjustment made by the TPO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in remitting the matter to the AO as it lacks the power to do so and also violated principles of natural justice by not passing a speaking order. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to have it restored if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) enhanced the assessment without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating Section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also noted that a 100% disallowance of purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the revised monetary limit of ₹50 lakh as per CBDT Circulars. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 290 days in filing the appeal deserved to be condoned in the interest of justice. Consequently, the case was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had tangible information from a search operation to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided documents to substantiate the share transactions.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by its own previous decision for a different assessment year. While acknowledging that 100% disallowance might not be appropriate when sales are not doubted, it upheld a 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular and Madras High Court decision were not considered by the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit at 5% on the value of ingenuine purchases. It reasoned that the sales were genuine and the purchases might have been made from the grey market for VAT savings, with a reasonable profit of 1% for cash purchases.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide any evidence linking the assessee to Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh. The addition was made without any basis and on surmises, and the CIT(A) did not address the issues raised.
The Tribunal held that since the revision order under Section 263 was already quashed by the ITAT, the subsequent assessment order giving effect to it became infructuous. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for withdrawal. Since the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-5 from the revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that quantum and penalty proceedings are distinct. The exception clause in the circular applied only to additions based on external information, not to penalty levies. Therefore, the Revenue's submissions were not accepted.
The tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable based on the CBDT's circular regarding low tax effect. The revenue could not point out any exceptions to this circular.
The Tribunal noted that the original assessment order was subsumed by the subsequent reassessment order. Therefore, the appeal against the original order was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the technical discrepancies and should have adjudicated the grounds on merit. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the balance 50% of additional depreciation is allowable in the subsequent assessment year if the asset was used for less than 180 days in the preceding year. This is based on the plain language of Section 32(1)(iia) and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that if income is disclosed as business income, all otherwise allowable deductions under that head should be permitted. The PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 without specifying the inquiries the AO failed to make, as the AO had taken a plausible view.
The Tribunal found that documentary evidence regarding the loan from Olympus Vision Pvt. Ltd. had been summarily brushed aside by the lower authorities in reassessment proceedings. Following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee admitted to inflating purchases and sales to avail bank loans and could not substantiate actual business transactions. The AO had disallowed unproved purchases and made additions for unexplained cash deposits and withdrawals. The CIT(A) also found sales to be inflated but sustained additions on such sales at 15% without sufficient justification. The Tribunal observed that tax authorities should determine actual income by evaluating past performance and industry averages, rather than taxing notional or perceived income. Since both the AO and CIT(A) made additions based on unsubstantiated figures and the assessee claimed only about 10% of transactions were genuine, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for a de novo assessment. This would allow the AO to determine actual purchases and sales, and consequently, the actual profit earned by the assessee, after considering additional evidence and providing a proper opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee will be given another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Tax Scheme, 2020, and the Revenue had issued the necessary form.
The Tribunal held that the annual lettable value of flats held as stock-in-trade by a builder/developer cannot be brought to tax under the head 'house property'. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a Co-operative Society, is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from Co-operative Banks. The Tribunal distinguished the Karnataka High Court's decision in Totagars Co-operative Society and relied on its own coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year, the disallowance under Section 14A was rightly deleted. The Tribunal relied on its own previous order and a High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings are distinct from quantum assessment proceedings. The exception in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for quantum proceedings does not apply to penalty proceedings.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and received Form-3. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had made excessive disallowances under Section 14A. It held that a rational basis should be used to identify specific expenses attributable to earning exempt income, considering both exempt and taxable income.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition to income is sustained on an estimated basis. The AO had made an ad-hoc disallowance of bogus purchases by estimating the income, while accepting the sales. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in restricting the addition on bogus purchases to 12.5% of the amount, considering the profit element and relying on High Court and Tribunal decisions. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that disallowing purchases while accepting sales in a one-to-one correlation scenario is not justified. It also noted that similar additions for prior years from the same party were deleted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, citing principles of natural justice. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings are distinct from quantum assessment proceedings. The CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets monetary limits for appeals, does not apply to penalty proceedings in this case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. It found that the borrowed funds were utilized for business purposes and that the new project management service business was commencing, justifying the expenses and depreciation claims.