Loading ITAT cases…
424 orders · Page 4 of 9
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 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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.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 withdrawal of approval to the payee institution subsequent to the assessee's payment does not affect the assessee's right to claim the deduction. The payee was approved at the time of payment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had received the necessary acknowledgement. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer lacked credible evidence to justify the increased ALV. The Tribunal agreed that actual rent received is a reliable yardstick unless influenced by extraneous factors, and the AO had not proven suppression of market rates.
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 noted that the assessee's declaration under the 'Viwad 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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 delete the addition on surveillance fees, finding the change in accounting policy to be bonafide. However, it modified the order regarding TDS claim, directing that it should be restricted to the income offered in the current year and the balance in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the interest income, stating that the assessee had followed the cash system consistently and the Revenue did not provide cogent material to dispute it. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s order on the accumulation of income as a consequential issue.
The Tribunal held that since the addition was accepted in the assessment of M/s. Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd. on a substantive basis, the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. The CIT(A) was therefore correct in deleting the addition.
The tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to strike off the irrelevant default in the show cause notice was a violation of Section 274(1) and principles of natural justice. This failure rendered the penalty order invalid and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner (Pr.CIT) failed to point out any specific error in the AO's order and that the AO had taken a possible view considering the prolonged litigation. The Pr.CIT's revisionary order was found to be not tenable without conducting an independent enquiry.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee received Form-5 from the revenue, indicating full and final settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal at this stage, granting liberty to the assessee to revive it if the declaration under the scheme fails to mature.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the differential profit margin, citing a High Court judgment. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s approach.
The tribunal, following the Madras High Court's precedent, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be taxed, not the entire amount. For business expenditure, disallowances made on estimation without examining documents were directed to be deleted. The addition on account of bogus purchases was restricted to 12.5%.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be taxed, not the entire amount. For business expenditure, disallowances made on estimation without examining documents were directed to be deleted. The addition on account of bogus purchases was restricted to 12.5%.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in disregarding the current leave and license agreement and making additions based on previous years' rent without proper determination of Fair Market Value (FMV). The CIT(A) also erred in upholding the AO's order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition purely on surmises and conjectures, failing to establish a link between the assessee's loss and non-genuine client code modification practices by brokers. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that while sales from these purchases were not doubted, only the profit element should be taxed. The Tribunal estimated the profit at 5% of the value of tainted purchases, modifying the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s reduction of disallowance to 5% of bogus purchases, finding the AO's estimation of 12.5% to be on the higher side, considering the typical GP range for iron and steel trading.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient evidence for the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. The AO failed to disprove these evidences, making the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to the extent that it disallowed interest on borrowed funds and taxed debenture interest under 'income from other sources'. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Following the Madras High Court's decision in M/s. Nannusamy Mohan (HUF), the Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, there was no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. The appeals were disposed of as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 8% of bogus purchases. It found the Assessing Officer's estimation of 12.5% profit margin to be on the higher side.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases. However, it considered the profit margin estimated by the Assessing Officer to be on the higher side and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 8%.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, finding the Assessing Officer's estimation of 25% to be on the higher side.
The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of approval for the donee institution cannot operate retrospectively to disallow the assessee's claim for deduction made when the approval was valid. The assessee is eligible for the weighted deduction if all conditions were met at the time of donation.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's estimation of 12.5% to be on the higher side, considering the assessee's accepted GP ratio of 4.10%.
The Tribunal estimated the profit on the disputed purchases at 8% and directed the AO to recompute the income accordingly. The balance additions were deleted.
The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's estimation of profit margin to be on the higher side. The CIT(A)'s order, which restricted the addition to 8%, was considered fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 12.5% on the disputed purchases was justified, as it was sufficient to cover the revenue leakage. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that a dispute regarding sale consideration was pending before the Civil Court, which would impact the taxability of the gains. Therefore, the appeal was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that information received from the investigation wing is considered an internal agency, not an external source as per the circular. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable on grounds of low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the entire bogus purchases cannot be added, only the profit element embedded in such transactions can be taxed. The CIT(A) correctly restricted the addition to the extent of VAT saved.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 6% of bogus purchases. It reasoned that only the profit element embedded in such transactions should be taxed, and the assessee's declared GP of 5% was considered.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order. Considering the assessee's request for a final opportunity and their assurance of cooperation, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when additions are made on an estimation basis without specific evidence of concealment. The deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing documents to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan parties. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 and the consequential disallowance of interest were deleted.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal pending before the Tribunal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing documents to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan parties. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 and the consequential disallowance of interest were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets monetary limits for appeals, and the exception cited by the Revenue was only applicable to quantum proceedings, not penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received acceptance. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the profit rate to 5% on undisclosed income, finding no infirmity in the order.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when additions are made on an ad-hoc estimation basis. Following various High Court and Tribunal decisions, it was concluded that estimated additions do not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the declaration under the scheme is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received acknowledgement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as per the assessee's request.