Loading ITAT cases…
329 orders · Page 6 of 7
The Tribunal held that the income declared in the assessee's books of account, being sham and bogus, could not be set off against the estimated commission income. However, the issue of forfeiture of share application money was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions on which the penalty was levied have been fully deleted, the consequential penalty would not survive. Therefore, the penalty is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) must clearly specify the limb of the charge for which it is issued. An omnibus notice, without striking off the irrelevant portion, suffers from vagueness and is bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the information received from DGIT(Inv.) did not fall under the specified external sources mentioned in the exception clause of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the exception did not apply.
The Tribunal held that the information received from the Income-tax Department's Investigation Wing does not qualify as an 'external source' as per the exception in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals are not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the information received from the Income-tax Department's Investigation Wing does not qualify as an 'external source' as per the exception in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals are not maintainable.
Following the Madras High Court's decision, the tribunal disposed of the appeal with liberty to the assessee to restore it if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement was not favorable or accepted. The appeal was dismissed as observed.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to have the appeal restored if the declaration under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme is later declared bad in law.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the enhanced Written Down Value (WDV) of the assets. This decision followed previous rulings by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification. The assessee was directed to furnish necessary evidence to substantiate the transactions, with an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C is not applicable to the transfer of mere reversionary rights. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to accept the cost of acquisition at 70% of the sale value, following previous orders in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that while the purchases were not genuine, the onward sales were not doubted. Therefore, a reduction in the addition was justified, and the revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the information received from the Income-tax Department's Investigation Wing does not qualify as an 'external source' as per the exception in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals are not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, did not fall under the specified external sources mentioned in the exception clause of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the exception for undisclosed foreign income/assets did not apply as the addition was an estimated expenditure for maintaining a foreign bank account, not directly related to undisclosed foreign income or assets. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable based on the tax effect.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's representative also conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law as they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) for which the proceedings were initiated. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had received acknowledgement. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's exercise of revisionary jurisdiction was invalid. It was established that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when no exempt income has been earned during the year, as per settled legal position.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration filed under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred on the registered mortgage deed for obtaining the bank loan were correctly capitalized as part of work in progress. The assessee was therefore entitled to include this amount.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available, which exceeded the interest-free loans advanced, the disallowance of interest on borrowings was unjustified. The loans were presumed to be out of interest-free funds.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case. A cost of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on the assessee for the non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of disallowance under Section 14A, the interest expenditure should be computed after netting the interest paid on borrowings against the taxable interest income earned. The disallowance should be recomputed accordingly.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted, and no demand was pending, with a refund due. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to treat the gains as capital gains, subject to verification of delivery-based trades. The disallowance under Section 14A was also found to be in accordance with law.
The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the delay by producing evidence or affidavits. The matter was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has the power to dispose of rectification petitions on merits. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's submissions and dispose of the rectification petition expeditiously.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and requested withdrawal. The Revenue did not object to this course of action.
The Tribunal found the estimation of 3% made by the CIT(A) to be fair and reasonable, considering the factual matrix of the case. Therefore, the estimation could not be interfered with.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element embedded in the non-genuine purchases at 4% for both assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the exception mentioned in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 for additions based on external sources was not applicable as the information was received from the Income-tax department's Investigation Wing. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. In view of the assessee's submission and the Department's no objection, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.
The ITAT, noting the assessee's failure to provide documents and the lack of appearance, decided to restore the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element embedded in the purchases, finding no error in quantifying it at 25%. The AO had neither rejected the assessee's books nor found that the goods did not form part of sales or closing stock.
The Tribunal held that information received from the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax department is not considered an 'external source' as per the exception in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that information received from the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax department is not considered an 'external source' as per the exception in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element embedded in the non-genuine purchases at 8% and restrict the disallowance accordingly.
The Tribunal held that information received from the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax department is not considered an 'external source' as per the exception in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that provisions for gratuity and leave encashment, made as per statutory requirements and accounting standards, should be considered as application of income for the trust's objects. It also allowed the carry forward of the deficit to subsequent assessment years, following established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the purchases were supported by invoices, payments were made via account payee cheques, and the sales corresponding to these purchases were not doubted by the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the purchases were supported by invoices, payments were made via account payee cheques, and the sales corresponding to these purchases were not doubted by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the issuance and service of a valid notice under section 143(2) is a foundational requirement for assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. In the absence of such notice, the reassessment order lacks legal sanctity, and participation by the assessee does not cure this defect.
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's 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 re-characterization of equity investment in an AE as debt was not justified and deleted the consequential adjustment. It also allowed the deduction for late payment of employee PF and ESIC, finding it to be allowable expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the issuance and service of a valid notice under Section 143(2) is a foundational requirement for reassessment proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. In the absence of evidence of such issuance and service, the reassessment order lacks legal sanctity.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was Rs. 36.96 lacs, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs for appeals as per Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.