Loading ITAT cases…
451 orders · Page 8 of 10
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 held that the purpose of the loan was established and the assessee had rightly claimed the interest. The disallowance of interest by the lower authorities was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the prayer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an EOU, followed strict procedures for deemed imports, and the purchases were substantiated with documentary evidence and banking transactions. The Tribunal also noted the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of third-party statements.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not imposable as the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The disallowances related to items fully disclosed in the books of accounts and return of income, and the depreciation claim on the motor vehicle should have been allowed.
While acknowledging the assessee's negligence, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A) based on the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis for the penalty have been deleted, the penalty cannot survive. The pendency of further appeals by the revenue before the High Court does not justify confirming the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. As the matter was resolved, the appeal was required to be withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on tangible information and not a mere change of opinion. Regarding the disallowance, the Tribunal reduced it to 2% of the alleged non-genuine purchases, considering the nature of business and a co-ordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be judicious and reasonable. They agreed that the estimated disallowance of 60% was fair, considering the assessee's sales and likely consumption of the purchased goods.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of alleged non-genuine purchases to be fair and reasonable, upholding the lower appellate authority's order.
The Tribunal held that the AO made the disallowance solely based on information from the Investigation Wing without conducting independent enquiries. Since no adverse material was brought on record to establish the fictitious nature of the loss, the addition was based on conjectures and surmises.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's petition to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement failed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the matter in the absence of the assessee without providing a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not justified as the disputed sum was received in an earlier financial year (2008-09) and represented an opening balance for the impugned assessment year. The assessee had also discharged its initial onus to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s estimation of 12.5% disallowance on purchases, considering it fair and reasonable to plug revenue leakage, especially since the assessee was engaged in trading activities.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue representative conceded to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that payments for lounge facilities are for services rendered under a contract, not for the use of space as defined in Section 194I. Therefore, TDS at 2% under Section 194C was appropriate.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for other assessment years. It directed the AO to tax only 12% of the 'on money' receipts as income, following the assessee's method of accounting.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision, acknowledging that the receipt and utilization of wrist watches could not be ignored. They found it reasonable to make an estimated addition of 12.5% on the purchases.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the estimation made by the CIT(A) as it was in line with the estimation made in the earlier year and confirmed by the Tribunal. The estimation of 7% was considered fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal restored the issue of approval back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all requisite details and documentary evidence, and the CIT(E) was asked to dispose of the application within 6 months.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal, and the Departmental Representative had no objection. The Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which restricted the addition to 12.5% of purchases from one party, considering the profit element embedded in such transactions. Purchases from the other two parties were deleted as they pertained to a subsequent assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. The Tribunal found the 25% rate applied by the CIT(A) to be on the higher side but did not interfere.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order which restricted the addition to 6% on bogus purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity as the GP declared by the assessee on genuine purchases was 10.18%, and the CIT(A)'s estimation was reasonable.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, the estimated profit margin was on the higher side. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not strike off the irrelevant portion, making it ambiguous. Following a Full Bench decision of the jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal found this defect vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element in unproved purchases can be taxed. It found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 12.5% to be reasonable and upheld it, considering the AO's 25% estimation to be on the higher side.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. It reasoned that only the profit element embedded in such transactions, not the entire amount, should be taxed, especially since the assessee's sales turnover was not disputed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for withdrawal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to apply a 12.5% profit margin on bogus purchases. This rate was considered reasonable and consistent with previous tribunal rulings on similar cases.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed. The tribunal noted that co-ordinate benches consistently apply a GP rate between 2% to 12.5% in such cases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering it a judicious and correct approach. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that only the profit element embedded in such transactions can be taxed, not the entire amount. The assessee failed to prove the authenticity of purchases, but sales turnover was not disputed.
The Tribunal held that a defective show-cause notice, where the irrelevant portion for penalty initiation was not struck off, vitiates the penalty proceedings. Following a Full Bench decision of the jurisdictional High Court, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in making a disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) as it was outside the scope of limited scrutiny. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was to be recomputed considering only investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 43CA, which allows for a tolerance band of 10% difference, is curative in nature and has retrospective application. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases at 12.5%. This was based on High Court and co-ordinate bench decisions that only the profit, not the entire purchase value, should be added to income.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's petition for withdrawal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the prayer for withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the profit embedded in bogus purchases, following the Gujarat High Court's precedent. The Tribunal found the 12.5% rate to be justified and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that while 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted, the 12.5% disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was justified given the circumstances of grey market purchases.
The Tribunal, following a similar order from the Madras High Court, treated the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee due to their opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the scheme's outcome was not in their favor.
The assessee complied with the conditions of the VSVS scheme and a final settlement certificate was issued. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue has become infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases. They noted that the CIT(A) had considered documentary evidence provided by the assessee and followed a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was based on the assessee's submission that for the same AY 2014-15, the assessment was completed without applying Section 167B, and the revenue representative agreed to this approach.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court in a similar case. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.