Loading ITAT cases…
451 orders · Page 4 of 10
The Tribunal held that refunds must be adjusted first against interest due and then against the principal tax amount. The issue is not debatable and is covered by various judicial pronouncements.
The Hon'ble High Court set aside the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263, holding that the original assessment order was void ab initio. Consequently, the consequential assessment order was also deemed invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases, finding it to be in conformity with various judicial precedents.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 3%, considering it fair and reasonable. The Tribunal noted that the AO's disallowance of 25% lacked a reasonable basis and that the 3% figure aligned with profit margins in the diamond industry.
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn and the revenue's appeals as infructuous, as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that since the additions leading to the penalty were made on an estimate basis and some dealers confirmed transactions, neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars was proved. The appeals were also dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that once business income is estimated, a separate disallowance of expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) is not permissible, as it would lead to a distorted assessment. The AO's action of estimating income was considered a possible view, not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn and the revenue's appeals as infructuous, given the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that once business income is estimated, a separate disallowance of expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) is not permissible, as it would lead to a distorted assessment. The AO's action of estimating income was considered a possible view, not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that since the additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were subsequently deleted by the Tribunal itself, the penalty could not survive. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that once business income is estimated, a separate disallowance of expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) is not permissible, as it would lead to a distorted assessment. The AO's action of estimating income was considered a possible view, not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that dividend income exempt under Section 10(34) cannot be brought to tax by invoking provisions of Sections 11 and 13. The exemption under Section 10(34) is independent of the eligibility for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that additions based on estimation and guesswork, especially when the disallowance was substantially reduced by appellate authorities, cannot lead to the imposition of penalty as concealment or inaccurate particulars were not established.
The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal, stating that a rectification order under Section 154 had provided substantial relief. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Indian subsidiary did not constitute a PE, and therefore, the reinsurance income was not taxable in India. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for long-term capital loss from the sale of shares, finding the transaction to be genuine.
The Tribunal held that an estimated addition, made due to doubt about the source of purchases, cannot lead to a conclusion of concealed income. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for indexation benefit on the Fair Market Value (FMV) determined by the DVO as on 01.04.1981, as the DVO's report did not indicate that the FMV included indexation.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of a claim does not automatically lead to penalty unless the claim is ex-facie bogus. The assessee's claim for the expenditure was not found to be bogus, and their conduct was not contumacious.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the disallowance was estimated and the assessee had provided purchase vouchers and made payments through banking channels. Therefore, the assessee was not guilty of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that withholding tax and service tax paid by the assessee were not equivalent to VAT and thus the TPO was justified in making an adjustment. The disallowance of software lease payment and referral fee was deleted as the expenditure was for business purposes. A partial disallowance was made for leasehold premises improvement expenses.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to have it restored if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The tribunal held that the non-communication of reasons for reopening the assessment is a jurisdictional error, rendering the assessment order bad in law. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment in Ms. Nisha Punjani's case were vitiated as they did not indicate a belief that her income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the seller.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases could not be treated as genuine, a 100% addition was excessive. Following judicial precedent, the addition was restricted to an estimated profit element of 12.5% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the AO lacked proper application of mind while recording the reasons. The AO was unclear about the nature of the escaped income, making the reopening invalid.
The tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw their appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the exception cited by the Revenue, based on external sources like law enforcement agencies, did not apply as the information was from the Income-tax department's Investigation Wing. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The tribunal held that the filter for related party transactions exceeding 25% of operating revenues was valid, allowing the revenue's ground on this issue. However, the filter for rejecting consistent loss-making companies was deemed invalid, dismissing the revenue's ground on this point.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal should be treated as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to avail the benefits of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's inquiries revealed the loan givers' identity was not established, and the companies appeared non-existent. The Tribunal also noted irregularities in the affidavits filed by the directors of the loan-giving companies and the suspicious closure of bank accounts after loan repayments. The CIT(A) was found to have erred in not conducting further inquiries himself.
The Tribunal held that if no exempt income has been earned, no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made. This decision is supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that receipts from the time charter of the vessel were not to be treated as royalty under the India-Singapore DTAA, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. However, the issue of reimbursement of expenses was remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had justifiable reasons for the delay in furnishing the TRC and Form 10F. The AO's denial of the DTAA benefit was based on a misconception, as the assessee was seeking application of treaty rates, not credit for foreign taxes paid.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment. However, it modified the addition for bogus purchases, directing that only a 2.5% profit element should be taxed, considering that the corresponding sales were not doubted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and received the necessary form. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal treated the appeals as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to have them restored if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal held that MSBTE is 'State' under Article 289 of the Constitution of India and is therefore entitled to immunity from taxation under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal followed its own prior decisions on the same issue for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the exception in CBDT Circular 3/2018 for external agency information applied only to additions, not penalties. Since the tax effect of the penalty was below the prescribed monetary limit and did not fall under any exception, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s view on simultaneous proceedings under Section 201 and Section 163 was incorrect due to amendments in Section 195. However, since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits of treating the assessee as an agent under Section 163, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that initiating penalty proceedings for one limb of Section 271(1)(c) and levying it for another limb is not permissible. The penalty order must be based on the specific ground for which proceedings were initiated, and the assessee must have notice of it.
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 Form-3. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the ineffective service of notices. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's disallowance to be on the higher side. It held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be taxed, not the entire amount, and found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's estimation of profit margin on unproved purchases to be on the higher side. The CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed due to low tax effect. Furthermore, on merits, the addition was liable to be deleted as the assessee had furnished the required certificate under Section 201(1) read with Rule 31CB(1), confirming the payee had offered the amount to tax.
The Tribunal found the estimation of profit at 12.5% to be on the higher side. It reduced the addition on account of bogus purchases to 7.5% of the unproved purchases, considering the general GP range for such trading.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which had marginally reduced the disallowance on bogus purchases. The assessee's failure to discharge its onus regarding the genuineness of purchases was noted.