Loading ITAT cases…
451 orders · Page 5 of 10
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 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 upheld the reopening of assessment and rejection of books of account. However, it found the estimated profit margin on bogus purchases to be on the higher side and restricted it.
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.
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 held that since the AO accepted the assessee's sales turnover, only the profit element in suspicious transactions could be taxed, not the entire purchase amount. The CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 12.5% was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict the addition to 7% of the non-genuine purchases. The CIT(A) had followed the Tribunal's own decision in the assessee's case for preceding assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration and undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received acceptance. Accepting the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the LTCG on the sale of shares was not bogus, as the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and the AO had not conducted further verification. The additions made by the AO were consequently deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that disallowance on an estimated basis due to non-production of suppliers does not automatically amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The conduct of the assessee was not found to be contumacious.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be deprived of legitimate claims for set-off and carry forward of losses, especially when the time for filing a revised return had lapsed. The claims were genuine and not fictitious.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for foreign exchange loss, following its own consistent precedents. It also directed deletion of an addition related to marketing service fees, again based on prior rulings in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court, disposed of the appeal as the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme settlement was not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element of the on-money receipts should be taxed, following a co-ordinate bench decision which applied a 12% profit margin based on prior settlement commission orders.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the disallowance is on an estimated basis due to non-production of suppliers, especially when vouchers and banking transactions are in order. The conduct of the assessee was not found to be contumacious.
The Tribunal held that while the AO could not establish the genuineness of the suppliers, the assessee had proved the corresponding sales. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in the purchases should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that the Form 35 was digitally signed by a Director, and therefore, there was no defect in the appeal filed. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the advance received for property sale is a capital receipt, not a trading liability. Since the liability was continuously shown in the balance sheet and repayments were made, it had not ceased to exist, and Section 41(1) was not applicable.
The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 25% of the non-genuine purchases, considering the totality of facts and the possibility of additional profit earned by the assessee. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, relying on a High Court decision. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no contrary case laws presented by the Revenue.
Following the Madras High Court's precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order to restrict the addition to 5% of suspicious purchases. The CIT(A) had considered the evidence and submissions and found the 10% addition to be on the higher side.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order to restrict the addition to 5% of suspicious purchases. The CIT(A) had considered the evidence and submissions and found the 10% addition to be on the higher side.
The Tribunal held that a GP percentage of 0.55% would meet the ends of justice, directing the AO accordingly. This decision was made after considering the assessee's explanation for the higher GP in the previous year due to write-off of business creditors.
The Tribunal held that Section 207(2) of the Income Tax Act exempts individuals over 60 with no business income from paying advance tax. Therefore, the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C was not justified.
The Tribunal followed previous decisions of a co-ordinate bench, allowing the assessee's appeal on transfer pricing adjustments and disallowance under Section 14A. The issue of interest on income-tax refunds was remitted to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), agreeing that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned, following the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Both the Revenue's and the Assessee's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), agreeing that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned, following the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT.
The Tribunal noted that only one appeal would survive for the assessment year. The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the current appeal.
The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's decision for earlier assessment years, which had ruled in favor of the assessee on similar transfer pricing and interest issues. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had successfully resolved the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, rendering the revenue's appeals infructuous. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a 12.5% disallowance was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and received the relevant form. Therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal held that the mandatory sub-letting charges paid to MIDC are a direct charge on the income earned from sub-letting. Therefore, the rental income should be reduced by the proportionate annual amount of these charges.
Both the assessee and the revenue confirmed that all taxes have been paid under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, related appeals must be withdrawn. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal, as the Revenue's representative also conceded to the withdrawal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle the litigation under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were disposed of as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle the litigation under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were disposed of as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute through the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and requested the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled by the AO and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, related appeals must be withdrawn. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn.
The assessee's counsel informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, related appeals must be withdrawn. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, related appeals must be withdrawn. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the defect in Form No. 35 was rectifiable and the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to cure it. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.