Loading ITAT cases…
451 orders · Page 3 of 10
The Tribunal held that when the addition to income is made on an estimated basis, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on the ratio of decisions from the jurisdictional High Court and its own benches.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred by invoking Rule 8D without recording the necessary dissatisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's suo motu disallowance. The invocation of Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D requires prior satisfaction of the AO.
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 payments were for the purchase of material (flex and vinyl) on which VAT was paid. Therefore, Section 194C was not applicable, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect.
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 AO failed to record any dissatisfaction with the assessee's suo motu disallowance before invoking Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, the AO lacked the jurisdiction to substitute his own computation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and received the relevant form. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted, and the Designated Authority issued Form-3. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 found that gifts and unsecured loans were adequately supported by documentation like affidavits, bank statements, and donor's income declarations. Therefore, the additions made by the revenue were deleted.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, estimating the profit element. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that in an unabated assessment year, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make the addition.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was dismissed as it had a low tax effect and did not fall under any exceptions provided in the relevant CBDT circulars. The argument that penalty appeals might fall under exceptions was also rejected.
The Tribunal held that claiming unsustainable depreciation alone does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the subsidies were capital in nature, following previous decisions for earlier assessment years. Therefore, they were not chargeable to tax for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the assessee were neither royalty nor fees for technical services. Following its own previous decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal concluded that the income could not be taxed in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).
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.
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.
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.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not strike off inappropriate words, making it vague. This issue is covered by the Bombay High Court's decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s reduced commission rate based on past average profits. However, it directed the AO to re-estimate income for brokerage, commission, and contract receipts at 8% as separate streams of income.
The Tribunal deleted the additions related to gifts from the mother and two other donors, as well as the addition for low household drawings. The addition for interest on unsecured loans and sundry creditors were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that merely because the assessee could not produce parties for verification or delivery challans, it cannot be treated as concealment of income, especially when the assessee had discharged its onus to prove purchases. The AO had also estimated the profit rate and not proved concealment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in directing the AO to re-compute the interest under Section 244A by following the tribunal's own previous decisions. The adjustment of refund against interest first was deemed correct.
The ITAT condoned the delay, holding that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
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 found substantial merit in the assessee's submission regarding the lack of opportunity. The principles of 'audi alteram partem' were invoked, and the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the tribunal found no necessity to keep the appeal alive.
The Tribunal held that additions made in the assessment order cannot automatically be the basis for levying penalty. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Reliance Petro products (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal found that making a claim not sustainable in law, without concealment or inaccurate particulars, does not warrant penalty.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation, following previous coordinate bench decisions. For the capital gains issue, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the higher amount pertained to a sale in a prior year and the actual sale consideration for staff quarters was Rs. 6,70,000.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided details of corresponding sales and the AO did not dispute them, only the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases should be taxed. A profit margin of 3% was deemed fair.
The Tribunal held that Section 79 of the Act is not applicable for computing book profit under Section 115JB. The deduction for brought forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation should be as per the books of account, as per Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2).
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing an appeal. The Revenue's contention regarding information from an outside agency was not accepted as the information originated from the Income Tax Department's investigation wing.
The Tribunal held that the price charged by GESA to the AE could not be considered as a Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP). It also directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the comparables selected by the assessee under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and determine the arm's length price accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law, citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Jet Airways. It further noted that no addition was made under Section 56 of the Act as per the reasons recorded for reopening, but an addition was made under Section 68. For the second appeal, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside due to lack of sufficient opportunity for the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that in similar circumstances, the Madras High Court had allowed assessees to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Following this precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal treated the appeals as dismissed and withdrawn in view of the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the declaration under the scheme is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal held that for interest-free loans to a subsidiary, only the LIBOR rate should be considered for transfer pricing adjustments, not LIBOR plus a spread. Regarding Section 14A, the disallowance should only be calculated on investments that yielded exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the denial of accumulation was unjustified as electronic filing of Form 10 was not mandatory for the relevant assessment year. The physical filing of Form 10 was done in time, and the audit report also reflected the accumulation.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for its own manufactured products in India do not constitute an international transaction. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for royalty expenditure, following its own prior decisions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal on technical grounds when substantial justice was at stake. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was without jurisdiction as no search was conducted on the assessee. Furthermore, additions based on unreliable documents and extrapolation from another assessment year without corroborative evidence were deleted.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the penalty appeal would not survive once the quantum appeal was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the additions at 10% of the purchases. It reasoned that since the AO did not doubt the consumption/sales, the motive for bogus bills was to suppress profits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return was due to a reasonable cause, specifically the incorrect PAN issuance. The bonafides of the assessee were also supported by the acceptance of the belatedly filed return.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, the assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the assessee and restored the issues of interest expenditure and notional income from house properties to the AO for re-adjudication. The AO is directed to consider the newly filed documents and verify the assessee's claims.