Loading ITAT cases…
424 orders · Page 3 of 9
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. The Tribunal granted liberty to the appellant to point out exceptions, but ultimately dismissed the appeal based on the monetary limit.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 noted the assessee's withdrawal letter and the submission by the DR. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the dealers and purchases, the addition should be restricted to 5% of the bogus purchases, considering the general G.P. in the trading of such metals.
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 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 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 penalty cannot be levied when income is assessed on an ad-hoc estimation basis, as it does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The appeals were also dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have disposed of the appeal on merits and that the assessee deserves a more effective opportunity. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's representative also conceded to the withdrawal.
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 omission to declare the full interest income and claim TDS credit was a bona fide mistake, not a deliberate concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied was not sustainable.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision which sustained an addition of 12% based on the assessee's settlement commission submission. The Tribunal held that this was part of business income, not requiring invocation of Section 68, and thus Section 115BBE was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the AO had accepted the assessee's claim for expenses and donations without proper verification, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the CIT's action under Section 263 was justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions not covered by the set-aside directions. The order of the AO and the CIT(A) were deemed invalid and void ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that the issue was decided in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years, relying on coordinate bench decisions and the Hon'ble High Court's order. Therefore, the AO was directed to follow the previous directions.
The Tribunal held that no addition could be made in the hands of Shri Sunil Chimanlal Gandhi as the foreign bank account did not belong to him and there was no incriminating material to prove otherwise. Similarly, for Shri Pranav Sunil Gandhi, no addition was warranted as the account was not in his name and he had no connection to it.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT cannot invoke Section 263 based on a comparison with a subsequent assessment year's records or borrowed satisfaction from the AO. The AO had already applied their mind and verified the issues, making the Pr. CIT's order void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition was impermissible as there was no evidence of income earned by the assessee in the process. The lower appellate authority had rightly deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. Regarding indirect expenses, the assessee's suo moto disallowance was deemed sufficient. The business loss on NSEL transactions was allowed as a business loss and eligible for carry forward.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and had received acknowledgement. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. The AO needs to verify the applicability of the principle of mutuality in light of the High Court's tests and other relevant factors.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issues of reopening and merits. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified because the show-cause notice for penalty had an incorrect assessment year and the final assessment was framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147, indicating cooperation. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3 from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal after they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the determined tax.
The Tribunal held that since the sales turnover declared by the assessee was accepted, the entire alleged bogus purchases cannot be disallowed. Only the profit element embedded in such transactions can be brought to tax.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic and non-speaking order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper objective satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D, and therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted. The Tribunal also allowed deduction for Education Cess and ESOP expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper objective satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D, and therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted. The Tribunal also allowed deduction for Education Cess and ESOP expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of unexplained credit, finding the assessee's explanation regarding opening balances of transfer schemes acceptable. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances for stamp duty, service fees, and freight on capital equipment, deeming them revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also affirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the write-back of expenses disallowed in AY 2007-08.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s omission to adjudicate a specific ground of appeal was a glaring and patent mistake, making the order rectifiable under Section 154. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order rejecting the rectification application was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper objective satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D, and therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted. The Tribunal also allowed deduction for Education Cess and ESOP expenditure.
The Tribunal found that while there were doubts regarding the genuineness of the transaction due to delayed credit to the demat account and cheque encashment, the departmental authorities had not conducted sufficient independent inquiry. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper objective satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D, and therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted. The Tribunal also allowed deduction for Education Cess and ESOP expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as the assessee had discharged the primary onus of establishing the genuineness of the transactions. The revenue failed to corroborate the additions with cogent material and denied the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 43CA are not retrospective and do not apply to agreements executed prior to its introduction. The assessee had entered into a development agreement on 06/03/2011, prior to the introduction of Section 43CA (effective from 01.04.2014). The sale of additional area was pursuant to this pre-existing agreement. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Swananda Properties (P.) Ltd. and the Delhi High Court's decision in Zain Constructions v. ITO, which held that Section 43CA cannot be applied to agreements entered into before its insertion. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) could not be sustained. Consequently, other arguments raised by the assessee became academic. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable because the assessee's returned income, including the surrendered amount, was accepted by the AO. Furthermore, the penalty notice was found to be vague and lacked specificity, failing to meet the requirements of natural justice and legal precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and had received acknowledgement. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal, following a precedent from the Madras High Court, treated the appeals as disposed of as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme outcome was not in their favor.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to withdraw it due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the settlement failed.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, holding that while the parties might be bogus, the purchases themselves were not entirely so, and only the profit element should be taxed. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this decision.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal held that the business commences with acquisition of land, necessary approvals, appointment of project manager, and procurement of plant & machinery. Since these were completed, the expenditure was allowable. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11.
The tribunal held that the write-off of expired goods was substantiated with documentary evidence and a Chartered Accountant's report. It also ruled that advances written off for technical know-how were revenue expenditure, not capital.
The Tribunal held that the impugned amount already formed part of the assessee's income and there was no concealment. The discrepancy in Form 3CEB was considered an inadvertent error, and the addition made by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the conditions of the VSVS and received a final settlement certificate. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue had become infructuous.