Loading ITAT cases…
300 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to opt for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and the department's no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) made an estimated addition for the profit element and the purchase of goods itself was not in doubt, it cannot be said that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the additions were merely estimated for unproved purchases, and therefore, no case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars could be made out. Additionally, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not adequately examine the assessee's claim of having surplus own funds for investments. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the assessee to e-file the appeal within 30 days. The first appellate authority was instructed to admit and adjudicate the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's precedent, disposed of the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, restored the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on an addition of Rs. 76.85 Lacs, providing another opportunity for the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had primary purchase documents, made payments through banking channels, and there could be no sale without actual purchase. Therefore, estimating a profit element was justified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee possessed primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels. Given the nature of the business, the estimation of profit at 5% by the CIT(A) was considered justified.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue could not demonstrate any exceptions to the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal treated the appeals as dismissed and withdrawn due to the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the declaration under the scheme is declared bad in law.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the declaration filed under the scheme was not accepted.
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, holding that since the additions on which the penalty was levied had been deleted by the Hon'ble Tribunal, the penalty could not be sustained. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when disallowance is estimated and the assessee's conduct is not contumacious. The penalty was deleted as the assessee was not guilty of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's Indian subsidiary did not constitute an agency PE or a PE in India, following a coordinate bench's decision. Consequently, the grounds related to attribution and estimation of profits became academic.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the primary onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence. The revenue failed to controvert these evidences, and the additions were deleted, following earlier decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made proper enquiries and accepted the assessee's submissions and evidence. The assessee had offered income in the relevant assessment year, and the registration dates falling in a subsequent year did not result in revenue loss, making Section 43CA inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted, the penalty could not survive. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal found the facts and issues identical to a previous year where a coordinate bench had ruled in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, following its own previous orders in the assessee's own case for similar assessment years where identical issues were decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority failed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order, lacked proper factual appreciation, and did not controvert the AO's observations. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, considering that the sales were not doubted. This approach allows for the addition of the profit element in unverified purchases.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on estimated additions for unproved purchases as it does not constitute concealment of income. Additionally, the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal held that the estimation of 12.5% profit on the disputed purchases by the CIT(A) was fair and reasonable, considering the assessee possessed primary purchase documents and payments were made through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's Indian subsidiary did not constitute an agency PE or a PE in India, following a coordinate bench's decision. Consequently, the grounds related to attribution and estimation of profits became academic.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit on purchases rather than disallowing them entirely, given that sales were not disputed and primary purchase documents and banking payments were available.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and, following a High Court order, treated the appeals as disposed of as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee for providing access to databases are neither Royalty nor Fees for Technical Services as defined under the Income Tax Act or the India-Germany tax treaty. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate the purchase of the import license. However, considering a similar issue for a prior AY where a 10% disallowance was made, the Tribunal estimated the addition at 10% of the license cost.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the quantum of penalty in dispute was below the monetary threshold limit of Rs. 50 Lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The CIT(A) estimated additions at 12.5% on these purchases, considering the assessee had primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that it was a fit case to estimate the profit element.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving purchases by providing sufficient documentary evidence and supplier confirmations. The Assessing Officer failed to bring any material on record to disprove the purchases.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the disallowance of depreciation was not sustainable. This was based on the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent and bonafide mistake, supported by past conduct.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's Indian subsidiary did not constitute an agency PE or a PE in India, following a coordinate bench's decision. Consequently, the grounds related to attribution and estimation of profits became academic.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the disallowance of depreciation was not sustainable. This was based on the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent and bonafide mistake, supported by past conduct.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's Indian subsidiary did not constitute an agency PE or a PE in India, following a coordinate bench's decision. Consequently, the grounds related to attribution and estimation of profits became academic.
The Tribunal held that the basic onus to establish the genuineness of purchase transactions was not discharged by the assessee. However, regarding labour charges, the Tribunal found that payments were made through account payee cheques after TDS, and additions based on suspicion were not sustainable.
The Tribunal declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal due to unsatisfactory reasons. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without being admitted.
The Tribunal deleted the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. The disallowance of expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was to be re-computed considering only investments yielding exempt income. The depreciation claim was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after appreciating the correct facts regarding leased assets.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's Indian subsidiary did not constitute an agency PE or a PE in India, following a coordinate bench's decision. Consequently, the grounds related to attribution and estimation of profits became academic.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's Indian subsidiary did not constitute an agency PE or a PE in India, following a coordinate bench's decision. Consequently, the grounds related to attribution and estimation of profits became academic.
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 that the CIT(A) relied on previous decisions without examining the assessee's documents and that the Assessing Officer's rejection as premature was unsubstantiated. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's precedent, treated the assessee's appeal as withdrawn due to the opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's Indian subsidiary did not constitute an agency PE or a PE in India, following a coordinate bench's decision. Consequently, the grounds related to attribution and estimation of profits became academic.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves an opportunity to explain the cause of delay before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.