Loading ITAT cases…
451 orders · Page 7 of 10
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as withdrawn. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which sets monetary limits for appeals.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to prove the authenticity of purchases and the AO accepted the sales turnover, only the profit element embedded in the transactions could be taxed. The AO erred in disallowing the entire purchases.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings are vitiated due to the defect in the notice, as it did not strike off the irrelevant portion. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made for short deduction of tax at source, especially when the applicability of different TDS sections is debatable. The Tribunal also noted that no order was passed under Section 201 holding the assessee as an assessee in default.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the primary issue of land ownership and income assessment, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, which relied on the ITAT's own previous decisions in the assessee's case for AY 2011-12. The Tribunal noted that the facts were not distinguishable and that the previous rulings had held that the land ownership vested with the State Government and the income derived therefrom could not be assessed as MIDC's income. The Tribunal also dismissed Revenue's Ground 11 concerning depreciation, finding the CIT(A)'s allowance of depreciation based on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel to be correct and not liable to interference, as nothing adverse was shown. Issues 13 and 14 were deemed formal and not requiring adjudication. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s finding that MIDC's activities were commercial and hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act. This decision was based on the ITAT's own prior ruling for AY 2010-11, which held that MIDC's activities of setting up/developing industrial estates and maintaining infrastructure were akin to business activities of private entrepreneurs and therefore fell within the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal noted that the assessee's concession that this issue was decided against them in their own case for AY 2010-11 was crucial.
The Tribunal held that information received from the DGIT (Inv.) is not considered an external source in the nature of law enforcement agencies as per the exception in the circular. Therefore, the appeal was not protected by the exception and was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion on the head of income, when the original assessment under Section 143(3) had accepted the assessee's claim, is not valid. The CIT(A)'s decision to annul the assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's representative also conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It was held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when income is assessed purely on an estimation basis, as there is no conclusive proof of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that information received from the Director General of Investigation (DGIT)(Inv.) is not considered an external source as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal did not meet the criteria for exceptions to the circulars.
The Tribunal held that once the basis for levying the penalty has been removed by deleting the addition in the quantum appeal, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the impugned order levying penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases, following its own precedent in the assessee's own case for the previous assessment year.
The Tribunal held that while the source of purchases was doubted, the fact of purchase was accepted. Considering the nature of business and declared profit, a disallowance of 2% on the alleged non-genuine purchases was deemed fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as the exception under paragraph 10(e) of the circular was not applicable. Information received from DGIT (Inv.) is not considered an external source as per the exception.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including MOUs and logbooks, to justify the business use of the helicopter. The disallowance of 25% by the CIT(A) was based on an unsubstantiated suspicion of non-business use.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 4,23,491/- on account of non-genuine purchases, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for subsequent assessment years. The rationale was that the disallowance should be restricted to the gross profit rate shown by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice was omnibus and vague, betraying non-application of mind by the AO. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to gold bars and coins, finding the assessee's explanation satisfactory and supported by documentation. Similar issues in related cases were also decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's main person was in custody, hindering proper compliance. To ensure fair play and justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including MOUs and logbooks, to justify the business use of the helicopter. The disallowance of depreciation and expenses was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified. Even though the gratuity scheme was not formally approved, the assessee had made regular contributions to an irrevocable trust for employee benefit, and there was no allegation of control over the funds by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases, considering the nature of the assessee's export business and other relevant factors.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases, considering it a reasonable estimation of the profit element in such cases.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases, considering it fair and reasonable given the nature of the assessee's business.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets monetary limits for appeals, does not apply to penalty proceedings in the same way as quantum proceedings. Furthermore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on an estimated addition.
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 found it fit and proper to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-5. Both parties agreed to this development.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it reasonable and based on judicial decisions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, agreeing that the addition should be restricted to 12.5% of bogus purchases.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the prayer.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee cannot be asked to pay tax that has already been deducted at source, as per Section 205 of the Income Tax Act. The AO was directed to allow credit for the TDS.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that only the profit embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. The Tribunal noted that the 28% rate applied by the CIT(A) was on the higher side compared to other Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire purchase amount. The Tribunal found the 25% rate applied by the CIT(A) to be on the higher side, but did not find reason to interfere with the order.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not attracted when income is assessed on an estimated basis. The Revenue failed to provide cogent material to challenge the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. The Tribunal considered 12.5% to be a reasonable profit rate based on High Court and co-ordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed. The Tribunal found the 14.89% GP rate applied by the CIT(A) to be reasonable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the AO did not conduct further inquiries and relied solely on information from the sales tax department. The CIT(A) had considered a bank certificate confirming financing and inspection of the plant and machinery.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the sale of jewellery was supported by purchase bills, banking channel receipts, and a confirmation from a registered dealer with substantial turnover. The acquisition by gift was also supported by an affidavit.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidences submitted by the assessee were material to the claim and ought to have been admitted. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) to admit these evidences and re-adjudicate the issue.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's representative also agreed to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that income from renting a terrace for an antenna tower should be taxed under 'Income from House Property', allowing for deductions under Section 24(a). This decision was based on previous Tribunal and High Court rulings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It was held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when income is estimated, as the assessee cannot be said to have concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in such cases.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court in a similar Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme case. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's precedent, disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The Tribunal restricted the commission income on building material bills to 0.75% and on transportation bills to 0.50%, relying on previous orders and the assessee's admitted rates. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s higher rates to be unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases. This was based on the ITAT's own decision in the assessee's case for prior assessment years with identical facts.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 6% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal reasoned that since the assessee's sales were not doubted, a 100% disallowance of purchases was not justified, following precedent in the assessee's own case.