Loading ITAT cases…
451 orders · Page 2 of 10
The Tribunal held that once the sales turnover is accepted, the entire bogus purchases cannot be disallowed; only the profit element embedded in such transactions can be taxed. The estimation of profit margin at 5% by the CIT(A) was found reasonable.
The Tribunal found that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was on the higher side. The CIT(A) correctly estimated the profit element embedded in such transactions at 12.5%, which was accepted by the assessee.
Following the Madras High Court's decision, the tribunal disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement was not favorable or accepted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated in law because the reasons recorded for reopening did not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts. This is a mandatory requirement for reopening after four years when the original assessment was under Section 143(3).
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases. Following a High Court judgment, the addition should be restricted to bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on these purchases to the same level as other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-5. Both parties agreed to this settlement.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of the recipient's confirmation. If confirmed, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) would be warranted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition under Section 10B, finding the issue covered by a co-ordinate bench. The ground regarding inventory was dismissed as not emanating from the CIT(A)'s order. The long-term capital loss claim with indexation benefit was allowed, and the expense on bank guarantee encashment was also allowed as a revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had judiciously considered the profit element embedded in the transactions, following established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of an addition made on an estimated or ad-hoc basis without proving concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.
The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the assessee's books of accounts and make adjustments considering the entity as a society, not a company. The ITAT affirmed this decision, finding it judicious and correct.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that penalty is not leviable when income is assessed purely on an estimate basis. The addition made by the AO was not based on a finding of concealment but on an estimation of profit from bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D(2) should only consider investments that actually yielded exempt income. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute the disallowance accordingly.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under VSVS was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not represented its case before the lower authorities. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee were in the nature of business profits and not royalty or FIS. Consequently, these profits were not taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and taken a possible view after considering the evidence, making the assessment order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction was invalidly exercised.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when additions are made on an estimated or ad-hoc basis without proving concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty orders were set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the ITAT had previously set aside the Section 263 orders and the High Court had not reversed these decisions. Therefore, the assessment orders based on those Section 263 orders were invalid.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation, noting that the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication and the basis for the disallowance no longer survived. For Section 14A, while acknowledging that some administrative expenses might be incurred, the Tribunal agreed that no disallowance was warranted as the assessee had not earned any exempt dividend income during the year.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when additions are made on an estimated basis without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found no concealment of income proved by the Revenue.
The tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under VSVS was accepted and the Designated Authority issued Form-3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 restrict the disallowance of bogus purchases to 6%, finding no infirmity in the order. The Revenue failed to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn at this stage, subject to the condition that if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration fails to mature, the assessee can revive the appeal. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal without insisting on a condonation of delay application if the outcome of the VSVS scheme caused a delay.
The Tribunal held that the facts were identical to earlier years where a 3% Net Profit Rate (NPR) estimation was confirmed by the Tribunal. Since the income was estimated without reference to books, separate additions for specific sections were not justified.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order unsustainable and lacking a proper hearing. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80-HHC in a MAT (Minimum Alternate Tax) scheme is to be computed on the adjusted book profit. Therefore, the assessee's claim for deduction was accepted.
The Tribunal held that the advances were given for genuine business requirements and commercial considerations, not as loans or advances for deemed dividend purposes. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions in similar cases involving the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a difference in the denominations of cash withdrawn and deposited does not automatically make the deposits unexplained. Currency is fungible, and it's difficult to track specific denominations. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee were in the nature of business profits and not royalty or FIS. Consequently, these profits were not taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.
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 held that losses arising from derivative segment trading are not speculative in nature due to the exclusion under Section 43(5)(d) and should be treated as normal business losses. Consequently, their set-off is permissible.
The Tribunal held that the amounts treated as unsecured loans were actually advances against the sale of flats, and the parking charges addition was not sustainable based on loose papers and a retracted statement.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not justifiable as it was passed without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made on an ad-hoc or estimation basis without proving concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made on an estimated basis, as it does not necessarily imply concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on unutilized grants should be treated as part of the grant itself and is therefore not chargeable to tax. The legislative amendments regarding employee contributions to provident fund were also held to be prospective, not affecting the current assessment years.
The Tribunal held that penalty is not leviable when income is estimated, citing High Court decisions. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was indeed below the prescribed limit and the Revenue could not provide any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 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 noted that the AO granted very short time for submissions and the CIT(A) may not have considered all submissions. The Tribunal decided to remit the entire matter back to the AO for fresh examination, without deciding on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, deleting the addition of deemed dividend as the shareholding pattern did not meet the criteria for invoking section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition related to the telecasting rights, following the principle of consistency and previous orders in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases. While upholding the disallowance, the Tribunal restricted the estimated GP on unproved purchases to 6% to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 201(1A) is mandatory but its computation period can be reduced if the payee has filed their return of income and paid taxes. The interest period will run from the date tax was deductible to the date of filing of the return by the payee.
The Tribunal held that Section 42(1)(b) allows deduction for expenditure incurred on drilling and exploration activities even after the commencement of commercial production. The Tribunal noted that similar claims were allowed in preceding and subsequent assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions. For share premium, the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the quantum. For the difference in share value, Section 69B was applicable, and the matter was remitted for re-examination of valuation.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years was bad in law as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reliance on a dismissed SLP constituted a mistake apparent from the record. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to carry forward its deficit and unabsorbed depreciation.