Loading ITAT cases…
424 orders · Page 2 of 9
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to leasehold land premium, citing a previous order. It allowed the deduction for swap charges, considering them as business expenditure. The addition under Section 41(1) was also allowed in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessment order was invalid because the notice under section 143(2) was not served on the assessee within the statutory period. The AO's failure to provide proof of service despite repeated requests supported this conclusion.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the directions of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to the extent practically possible given the nature of its trade. The failure to provide all details was considered to be backed by a reasonable cause, thus falling under Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, the entire bogus purchases could not be added. Only the profit element embedded in such transactions is taxable. The addition was restricted to 8% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it failed to specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being initiated. This omnibus notice suffers from vagueness and violates principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the AO completed the assessment ex-parte and the Commissioner (Appeals) did not properly deal with the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that depreciation cannot be denied merely because the vehicle was registered in the name of a partner, provided the payment was made through banking channels and the vehicle was used for business purposes. The AO had not doubted the source of payment or the business use of the vehicle.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases, considering it a fair and reasonable profit rate.
The Tribunal allowed the ground related to the taxability of Voluntary Emission Reduction (VER) credits, treating them as capital receipts, and also allowed the deduction for education cess. The issue of cost of acquisition for debentures was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification. The disallowance under Section 14A and the adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation for Section 80-IA were also decided in favor of the assessee, with some issues being restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable as the penalty amount fell below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The exception for quantum proceedings was not applicable to penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. However, the assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 20% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was indeed beneficiary of bogus purchases, the rate applied by the CIT(A) was reasonable and consistent with past precedents.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the Revenue can seek restoration of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Gujarat High Court ruling that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed. The Tribunal found the 12.5% rate to be reasonable.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. The Tribunal found the 25% rate applied by the CIT(A) to be on the higher side but did not interfere.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Both the assessee and the revenue agreed to the withdrawal of the appeal.
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 CIT(A) did not err in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,64,12,312/-. Regarding the Revenue's contention about Rule 46A, the Tribunal found it devoid of merit because the AO himself had obtained copies of the agreements during the assessment proceedings, as evidenced by the assessment order. Therefore, the CIT(A) admitting these agreements was not a violation of Rule 46A. The Tribunal perused the six agreements and concurred with the CIT(A)'s observation that the 'agreement value' was less than the 'stamp duty value' in all cases. Crucially, the Tribunal found that although agreements were executed during the year, only a part of the purchase consideration was paid. Except for an amount of Rs. 13,32,000/-, all other payments were made in preceding years. The Rs. 13,32,000/- was sourced from the assessee's returned income. Since the assessee had not made any investment in the properties during the year under consideration, except for Rs. 13,32,000/-, the addition made by the AO under Section 69 or Section 68 could not be sustained. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s view and upheld his order.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the information from the Sales Tax Department was considered an internal source. Furthermore, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty as the assessed income matched the returned income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and received the relevant form. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the information from the Sales Tax Department was considered an internal source. Furthermore, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty as the assessed income matched the returned income.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received Form-3 from the revenue under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal considered the withdrawal letter and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the VSVS scheme was accepted and Form-5 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted for resolution under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal considered the request and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was solely based on the low tax effect, which was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that revaluation of assets and crediting partners' capital accounts does not amount to distribution of assets under Section 45(4). The firm continued to own the assets, and no capital asset was transferred.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It agreed that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made on an estimation basis, as there is no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in such cases.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under VSVS was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is a fatal defect that goes to the root of the assessment. Consequently, the reassessment order passed without this mandatory notice is invalid and without jurisdiction.
The CIT(A) quashed the rectification order, holding that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 154 as the matter was sub-judice before the appellate authority. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in quashing an order passed without valid jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the exception provided in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for quantum proceedings does not apply to penalty proceedings. Penalty and quantum assessment are distinct.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without properly examining the evidence and circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied solely on documents without considering the AO's findings and relevant case law.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the penalty amount fell below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The exception mentioned by the DR was applicable only to quantum proceedings, not penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the provisions for pit covering and post-closure expenses were ascertained liabilities, supported by scientific computation and regulatory requirements. Therefore, they were allowable as business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, the entire addition could not be disallowed as sales were accepted. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to 10% of the unproved purchases.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's representative also conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that only real income, not hypothetical income, is taxable. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision, the addition of notional interest was deleted.
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 held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in furnishing the tax audit report due to circumstances beyond its control. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271B was not justified.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee opting for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filing the necessary declaration.
The Tribunal held that there was no nexus established by the AO between borrowed funds and the investment in the partnership firm. It further held that contributing capital to a partnership firm is a business purpose and it is irrelevant whether the investment yields taxable or exempt income.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed. However, they noted that 25% was on the higher side compared to typical GP rates.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit element at 25% on bogus purchases. It found the CIT(A)'s estimation reasonable given the facts, especially since the sales made from these purchases were not doubted.