Loading ITAT cases…
451 orders · Page 6 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO's proceedings under Section 133(6) were not conducted properly and lacked sufficient evidence to sustain the addition solely based on non-compliance with notices.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the purchases, following the principle of consistency with a prior year's order.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, related appeals must be withdrawn. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn.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 brokerage expenditure, though deferred in the books, was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and was not refundable. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Taparia Tools Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that the expenditure should be allowed in full in the impugned assessment year.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to settle the litigation under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VVS scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the VVS scheme declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VVS scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the VVS scheme declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, related appeals must be withdrawn. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, related appeals must be withdrawn. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn.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 since the assessee has settled the dispute under the VSV Scheme and received acknowledgement through Form 3 for both assessment years, the appeals should be dismissed. The Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeals pending.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and received Form-5. Both parties agreed to this development.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect involved was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A).
Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme was not finalized or accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of bogus purchases to 12.5% of the purchase value, considering the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the Vivad se Vishwas scheme does not resolve the matter, the assessee can seek restoration of the appeal.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that the revenue had accepted the declaration. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the 12.5% addition by the CIT(A) was excessive, considering the assessee's declared profit margins. It reduced the addition to 2% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to reconsider the facts in light of a co-ordinate bench's decision and SEBI's orders concerning the scrip.
The Tribunal directed the TPO not to charge interest on advances and receivables from an AE that had gone into liquidation. It also restored the issue of bad debts written off to the AO for verification and remitted the set-off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the withdrawal of the appeal and in enhancing the income without proper reasoning. The Tribunal also found that the direction to levy penalty was unsustainable as there was no finding of furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that no notional rent should be charged for the Navi Mumbai flat as the agreement was cancelled and the assessee was not in possession. For the Yashodeep flats, the Tribunal directed that ALV should be restricted to the municipal rateable value, especially when the flats were uninhabitable or vacant.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal held that the sale transactions were duly supported by contract notes, demat statements, and bank passbooks, with shares delivered through a demat account and proceeds received through banking channels. The AO failed to controvert these documentary evidences, making the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the non-genuine purchases, following the principle of consistency and judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the documentary evidence and judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases, finding no infirmity in the order. The Tribunal relied on previous judicial pronouncements that supported a 5% disallowance in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, a 100% disallowance was not justified as sales turnover was accepted. The profit element embedded in unproved transactions can be taxed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, a 100% disallowance was erroneous as sales turnover was accepted. The profit element embedded in unproved transactions can be taxed.
The Tribunal decided that issues concerning broken period interest, deferred payment guarantee commission, and depreciation on securities were settled in favour of the assessee based on previous Tribunal rulings. However, the disallowance for scientific research payments was upheld against the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the addition made by the Assessing Officer was substantially reduced by the ITAT on an estimation basis, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. The deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the debit balance in partners' capital accounts was due to accumulated losses and not drawings. Since no interest was paid on credit balances or charged on debit balances, and there was no diversion of funds for non-business purposes, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that while payments by cheque do not prove genuineness, the estimation of profit margin at 12.5% was on the higher side. The addition was restricted to 7% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the consultant doctors were independent professionals, not employees, as their payments were based on services rendered and patient attendance, and they lacked employee benefits. Therefore, TDS under Section 194J was correctly applied.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, the entire amount of bogus purchases could not be added as the sales turnover was not disputed. Only the profit element embedded in such purchases is taxable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) displayed scant regard to judicial discipline by not following the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The disallowance was restricted to the suo motu disallowance proposed by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the AO made a 100% addition of purchases, whereas the sales were not doubted. Relying on judicial precedent, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, estimating the profit element.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn in light of the assessee's settlement under 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 upheld the deletion of the penalty. It noted that the quantum appeal related to the additions had already been decided in favor of the assessee, and the issues were debatable. Furthermore, the penalty was not initiated correctly in one instance, and the income was disclosed in the return of income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance on bogus purchases to 12.5%, stating that only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be taxed. The assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of dealers and purchases was acknowledged.
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, relying on the fact that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were already deleted by the ITAT in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance on bogus purchases to 12.5% of such purchases, concurring that the entire amount could not be disallowed as sales turnover was accepted. The appeals were dismissed as lacking merit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to contest the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was no longer necessary to be kept pending.
The Tribunal held that once the quantum addition is deleted, the penalty levied in relation to that addition cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that distribution rights granted were commercial/broadcasting rights, not copyrights, and thus not royalty under the India-USA DTAA. It also directed the AO to verify and grant full TDS credit.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that while the Goetze decision disallowed claims not made in the original or revised return, the Supreme Court also held that ITAT has the power to admit such claims. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the claim on merits.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to verify if the interest was offered to tax and written off as bad debt, in which case the claim would be allowable under Section 36(1)(vii). The issue of referral fees was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering new evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was valid as the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper inquiry regarding the taxability of interest income. The assessment order was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.