Loading ITAT cases…
451 orders · Page 9 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding the estimation of 12.5% profit on alleged bogus purchases to be reasonable. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the dealers and purchases, the AO had not doubted the sales, and purchases are necessary for the assessee's work.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence without proper reasoning and in directing the reopening of prior years' assessments. The case was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, the entire amount could not be added back. Only the profit element embedded in such transactions is taxable. The CIT(A)'s decision to estimate an additional profit margin of 15% on unproved purchases was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue accepted the assessee's submission that the arm's length margin fell within the +/-5% range. Therefore, no transfer pricing adjustment was required.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of dealers and purchases, the Assessing Officer's estimation of profit margin was on the higher side. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 5% profit was concurred with.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that while the assessee failed to prove genuineness, the entire bogus purchases cannot be disallowed as sales turnover was not disputed. Only the profit element embedded in such transactions can be taxed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's withdrawal letter and the receipt of certificates under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The Revenue did not controvert this position.
The Tribunal, following a similar order from the Madras High Court, treated the appeals as withdrawn since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the scheme's outcome was not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were revenue in nature, relying on its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years. The Tribunal found no change in facts that would warrant a different conclusion.
The Tribunal held that the valuation date should be aligned with the appointed date of the scheme of arrangement approved by the High Court, not the date of the High Court's order or the share issuance. The AO's valuation was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as non-maintainable due to low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular that enhanced the monetary limits for appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the AO to re-compute the disallowance on bogus purchases. This was to ensure the AO follows the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT v/s M/s. Mohd. Haji Adam & Co. regarding the estimation of additions on bogus purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as non-maintainable due to low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular that enhanced the monetary limits for appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases cannot be made. The disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) at 25% was considered to serve the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in disallowing interest under Section 36(1)(iii). The aggregate partners' capital balances were positive and increased, indicating no diversion of funds for non-business purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25%. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance of purchases is not justified, as sales are impossible without purchases. However, purchases from the 'grey market' warrant some disallowance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that since the sales were not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases was not justified. The partial disallowance was considered to meet the ends of justice given the circumstances of grey market purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, following a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, and the Revenue had not disproved it.
The Tribunal held that there is no presumption that club expenses cannot be for business purposes and that the disallowance was based on surmises and conjecture. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed that the expenditure be allowed.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of expenses that reduce WIP does not automatically lead to penalty under Section 271(1)(c), especially when there is no impact on the income shown for the year. The conduct of the assessee was not found to be contumacious.
The Tribunal held that rental income from unsold units, leased out for long tenures with the object of earning rental income, should be treated as income from house property, aligning with previous decisions in the assessee's own case and High Court rulings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be taxed, not the entire amount. The CIT(A)'s restriction of the addition to 12.5% was found reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order was erroneous as it failed to consider the nature of inquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer. Following its own previous decisions on identical facts, the Tribunal quashed the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by applying a decision meant for trading concerns to a contractor and by failing to adjudicate the assessee's challenge to the reopening of assessment. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding the 12.5% profit estimation to be reasonable given the business nature and the assessee's acceptance. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not following jurisdictional High Court decisions in favour of the assessee. The dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court without a speaking order does not diminish the precedential value of High Court decisions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following a coordinate bench's decision. It was held that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, and 12.5% disallowance was considered to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, treated the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's belief in the rectification application's success to be a cogent reason. The Tribunal noted the AO's order lacked reasoning and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had made an error in calculating the exempt income. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication, considering only investments that yielded exempt income.
The Tribunal directed the AO to delete disallowances under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(i). For Rule 8D(2)(iii), the AO was directed to recompute disallowance considering only investments yielding exempt income and to reduce the voluntary disallowance.
The Tribunal held that disallowances cannot be made on surmises and conjectures and that the CIT(A) erred in not conducting proper enquiry. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on an estimated addition. Therefore, the AO was directed to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it fell below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The exception for quantum proceedings was not applicable to penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be computed based on the actual sale price of electricity to the RSEB, which was Rs. 4.28 per unit, and not a higher rate. The rate at which RSEB sells to consumers is irrelevant for the assessee's deduction calculation.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. It directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the matter on merits, considering the ITAT's order for a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the agreement value and stamp duty value was less than 10%, which is within the tolerance limit specified in Section 50C. The amendment providing this tolerance was considered curative and retrospective.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. The 12.5% disallowance was considered to meet the ends of justice given the circumstances of grey market purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and received Form-3. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
Following the High Court's precedent, the Tribunal treated the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, allowing them to avail the benefits of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. This is a settled legal position affirmed by the Apex Court.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing subsequent favorable judicial pronouncements as sufficient cause. The tribunal held that unsold flats, treated as stock-in-trade, cannot be taxed as 'Income from House Property' and directed the deletion of such additions.
The Tribunal followed the Madras High Court's order and disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee liberty to restore it if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution is not favorable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on estimated disallowances when purchase vouchers and banking channel payments are duly produced. The assessee cannot be considered guilty of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars in such circumstances.
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 additions to income are made purely on an estimated basis, without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5%, finding it served the interest of justice. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed due to delay.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus to substantiate the purchases. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as investments were presumed to be made from own funds. For administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the AO was directed to consider only dividend-bearing investments and ensure the disallowance does not exceed exempt income or total expenses.