Loading ITAT cases…
424 orders · Page 6 of 9
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the due taxes. Therefore, there was no need to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made on an estimation basis, as this does not necessarily imply concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not warranted as the assessee's own funds exceeded investments yielding exempt income. Furthermore, the addition of Section 14A disallowance to book profit under Section 115JB was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the accounting treatment of property as stock-in-trade does not alter the character of rental income. Following previous decisions, it confirmed that rental income from such properties is to be treated as income from house property.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 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 held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely on the basis of an ad-hoc addition made on estimation, as it does not automatically imply concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, deleting the penalty. It was held that the penalty was levied on an estimated addition for bogus purchases, which was a reasonable basis for deletion. The revenue's argument regarding information from the sales tax department was also found not tenable.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee for restoration if the scheme's decision is not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that crawler cranes and dozers are eligible for depreciation at 30% as motor vehicles, not 15% as plant and machinery. This decision was based on the functional similarity, the definition of motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, and numerous judicial precedents.
The Tribunal restored both issues to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to examine the documents furnished by the assessee and decide the matters afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's sales were not disputed, the purchases must have been from some undisclosed source. Therefore, only the profit element in such purchases could be added, and disallowing the entire purchases was not justified. The CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% was considered fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee possessed primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels. The CIT(A) had rightly restricted the additions to 12.5% to account for the profit element in the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the ALP adjustments for management fees and R&D costs were not sustainable as the TPO exceeded his authority by disallowing expenses rather than determining ALP. The interest disallowance was to be re-examined by the AO, excluding working capital and operational interest. The provision for erection charges was remitted back to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention regarding the monetary limit. The Revenue was granted liberty to point out exceptions to the monetary limit, and the appeal was dismissed based on the tax effect being below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal confirmed the estimation of 8% addition on bogus purchases, following a coordinate bench's decision on similar facts for an earlier assessment year. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5%. The Tribunal found that the assessee had primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels, making it a fit case for estimating the profit element.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeals as withdrawn, following the assessee's intention to utilize the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening in a separate speaking order, as required by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, rendered the reassessment invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeals as disposed of by being withdrawn, allowing the assessee to restore them if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution is not in their favour.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for non-compliance and the fact that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was indeed below the prescribed limit of ₹50 lacs. As there were no exceptions applicable, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that penalty cannot be imposed merely because an addition was made to the declared income. The AO failed to prove the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars, and the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and received Form-3. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's sales turnover was not in doubt, and payments were made through banking channels. Estimating the profit element at 8% was considered sufficient to cover revenue leakage.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the issue was covered by a decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that once the Revenue accepts the assessee is engaged in commission business for accommodation entries and has added commission, the addition of unsecured loan on account of bogus accommodation entry is not sustainable. The addition on account of unexplained jewellery was not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeals as withdrawn, following the assessee's intention to utilize the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal, following a previous decision in a similar case involving sister concerns, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's sales turnover was not in doubt and primary purchase documents were available. Considering the nature of the business, the Tribunal found it appropriate to estimate the profit element in these transactions. The CIT(A)'s reduction of the addition to 8% was deemed sufficient to cover revenue leakage.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeals as disposed of by being withdrawn, allowing the assessee to restore them if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution is not in their favour.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the addition to 5% of the purchases. The Tribunal found that the assessee had primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels, justifying an estimation of profit.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's withdrawal letter and the deposit of tax under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had settled the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the revenue's lack of objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal held that in cases of unabated assessments, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since the Assessing Officer (AO) relied solely on general investigation reports without further verification of documents submitted by the assessee, the additions were deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received a certificate under the Vivad se Vishwas Act for settlement. The revenue did not controvert this position.
The Tribunal held that the AO's method of adding the difference between opening and closing balances of unsecured loans under Section 68 was incorrect. It also held that repairs and maintenance expenses incurred for the school building were allowable business expenses.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment based on shares issued at a premium exceeding intrinsic value was not valid as the relevant provisions were introduced after the assessment year in question. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, serving notice through both email and the address mentioned in Form No. 35.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior year. It reduced the ad-hoc disallowance from 10% to 5% of the total expenses, considering the previous disallowance was made on presumptions without pinpointing specific defects.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds regarding brokerage and stamp duty, finding no violation of Rule 46A. However, it remanded the issue of Section 14A disallowance to the AO for re-determination of actual investment in a partnership firm.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment based on shares issued at a premium exceeding intrinsic value was not valid as the relevant provisions were introduced after the assessment year in question. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels, the inability to produce suppliers justified estimating profit. The addition of 12.5% was considered fair to plug revenue leakage.
The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, held that the appeals should be disposed of as withdrawn due to the assessees opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees are granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the scheme's outcome is not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that information received from DGIT (investigation) does not qualify as an 'external source' for the purpose of exceptions to the low tax effect circular. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.