Loading ITAT cases…
424 orders · Page 5 of 9
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) are prospective and not applicable to the year under consideration. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, employees' contribution to PF & ESI remitted before the due date for filing income tax returns is deductible.
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 Consequently, the appeal pending before the Tribunal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 when sales from these purchases were accepted as genuine, the entire purchases could not be treated as non-genuine. However, considering the possibility of gray market purchases, the addition was restricted to 12.5% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the additions at 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. It reasoned that the assessee's sales turnover was not in doubt and payments were made through banking channels, implying a profit element in the transactions.
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 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The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.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 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 approval should have been granted from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which the application was made, as per the 4th proviso to Section 80G(5). Therefore, the matter was referred back to the CIT(E) for de novo review.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to disallowance under Section 14A, disallowance of payments for non-compliance with RBI norms, and addition for tax on non-monetary perquisites. The Tribunal also allowed the additional ground regarding education cess. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed regarding the allowability of certain write-offs as business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14, where currency derivative transactions were held not to be speculative. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that a general confession by a third party cannot be the sole basis for addition in the assessee's hands, especially when the assessee's name was not mentioned and the third party later retracted his statement. The assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing confirmation letters and master data for the loan creditors.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the dealers and transactions, only the profit element embedded in such transactions can be brought to tax, not the entire alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A)'s restriction of addition to 25% was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances under Section 14A for interest expenses, finding that the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover investments yielding exempt income. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances from book profits under Section 115JB, following a Special Bench decision that such disallowances cannot be made when computing book profits.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal request due to the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed, rendering the Revenue's appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the non-education objects were incidental to the main purpose of education. It also found that Section 13(1)(c) was not applicable for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) and that the lease rent paid to trustees was not excessive or unreasonable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's letter and the submission of Form-5 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had deducted and remitted the TDS amounts, albeit with some delay, and there was no loss to the exchequer, the delay constituted a minor technical breach. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element of the on-money received should be taxed, not the entire amount. It directed the Assessing Officer to add only 12% of the on-money receipts as undisclosed income, following a precedent.
The Tribunal held that a disallowance solely for non-deduction of TDS under Section 40(a)(ia) does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), especially when the genuineness of the expenditure was not doubted. The penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal found that a 100% disallowance of purchases was not sustainable and referred to the Bombay High Court decision in Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that 'on money' receipts from sale of flats constitute business receipts and not cash credits under Section 68. Following previous decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal directed the AO to add only 12% of the 'on money' receipts as undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment did not mention any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings as void ab initio.
The Tribunal decided to follow the consistent rulings of the Coordinate Bench from preceding assessment years. For most grounds, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication based on prior Tribunal orders.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in an identical case of the assessee's husband. Based on that precedent, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the dealer, the sales turnover was accepted by the AO and there was no disparity in closing stock. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in the bogus transactions, not the entire purchases, could be brought to tax.
Following a similar High Court order, the tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the scheme's outcome was not favorable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 20% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering that sales turnover was accepted and only the profit element should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for appeals as per the CBDT circular. It further ruled that the exception cited by the Revenue, concerning search and seizure, did not apply as it referred to internal agency actions, not external law enforcement.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be brought to tax, not the entire amount. The CIT(A)'s estimation of GP at 12.5% was found to be reasonable.
The Tribunal noted that identical additions on similar facts in preceding and succeeding assessment years were deleted by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case. Following this precedent, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the profit estimation by the Assessing Officer was on the higher side. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, only the profit element embedded in such transactions can be taxed.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of bogus purchases, finding the Assessing Officer's estimation to be on the higher side.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) which had restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels. Estimating the profit element at 12.5% was considered sufficient to cover revenue leakage.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the advances were for genuine business purposes, even if one party was related, as there was a clear business transaction. Therefore, the disallowance of proportionate interest was incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had successfully availed the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and paid the taxes. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had initiated the Vivadh se Vishwas settlement process. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the settlement is not finalized.
The Tribunal found that the assesses were deprived of a fair opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the documents filed by the assesses.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when additions are made on an estimated basis without evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It acknowledged that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, only the profit element embedded in such transactions should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when additions are made on an estimation basis without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since sales turnover was accepted, the entire purchases could not be disallowed. Only the profit element embedded in such transactions should be brought to tax.
The Tribunal held that only the profit embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. It reduced the estimated Gross Profit from 12.5% to 6% on such purchases.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made on an estimated basis without proving concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The deletion of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases, finding the AO's estimation of 12.5% to be on the higher side. The Tribunal agreed that only the profit element in bogus transactions should be taxed.