Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 4 of 9
The Tribunal held that the infrastructure data center charges, referral fees, and member login fees were not in the nature of royalty. Following its previous decisions, the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal followed its own previous orders and the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. It held that the AO had not recorded satisfactory satisfaction for disallowance under Section 14A and allowed depreciation on leased assets based on consistency and prior rulings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share premium transaction and that the onus was on the assessee to establish the nature and source of credits. The relief granted by the CIT(A) was vacated.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the issue of deduction under section 80IC had become academic due to the computation of income under section 115JB.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal agreed that TDS provisions apply to interest paid to NBFCs. However, it remanded the matter to the AO to verify if the NBFCs had disclosed this income and paid tax, in which case the disallowance would not be required as per the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element of the bogus purchases, reasoning that the goods were likely procured from the open market at a discount. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of commission paid to the overseas agent, finding that the Assessing Officer had not provided sufficient reasons to disallow the expenditure. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding unexplained purchases, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the addition was made without cogent material.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the issues for AY 2014-15. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the unadjudicated issues, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had acted upon the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was considered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on an estimated income. The addition made on an ad-hoc estimated basis does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal held that the issues in the present appeal were covered by its previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s decision to allow exemption to the assessee was upheld.
The Tribunal found that dismissing the appeal ex-parte based on a single non-compliance, especially during the pandemic, was not justified. The assessee had generally cooperated and submitted necessary documents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the short-term capital loss from share transactions should be treated as capital gains, not business income. This was based on the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases for preceding assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT exceeded his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The issue of bad debts was not the basis for reopening the assessment, and therefore, the revisional proceedings were time-barred as per Section 263(2).
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the assessee's prayer.
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 assessee's prayer.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the 'tax effect' was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The exception in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 for additions based on external sources was found not applicable to penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on an addition that is purely an estimation or a guess work. Since the final addition was an estimated profit on alleged bogus purchases, the assessee cannot be said to have concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has no power to summarily dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is statutorily obligated to apply its mind to all issues. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was an omnibus show-cause notice, betraying a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the penalty levied was not legally sustainable.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of exempt income. However, the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2014, which restricted the disallowance to 30%, was not applicable retrospectively for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the litigation under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had paid the taxes. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal quashed the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to be heard, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received acceptance from the Revenue. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, considering the AO had accepted the assessee's turnover.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the litigation under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had paid the taxes. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that information from the Investigation Wing is considered internal and not an 'external source' as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal did not fall under the exception and was dismissed on grounds of low tax effect.
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 prayer.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the estimation of suppressed profit margin by the AO was on the higher side. The CIT(A) had fairly and justifiably restricted the disallowance to 5%.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 80A(5) of the Income Tax Act, a claim for deduction under Chapter VI-C must be made in the original return of income. Since the assessees failed to do so, their claim for deduction was not entertainable.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 80A(5) of the Income Tax Act, a claim for deduction under Chapter VI-C must be made in the original return of income. Since the assessees failed to do so, their claim for deduction was not entertainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the impugned purchases. This was based on the view that the profit element in purchases from the open market is typically estimated at this rate, and the revenue failed to provide material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance for non-deduction of TDS as the deductee had paid the tax. It also upheld the deletion of Section 14A disallowance as no exempt income was received. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding hawala purchases, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion for substantiated purchases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The core issue was whether the long-term capital loss on shares could be set off against long-term capital gains on property.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Rule 8D for interest disallowance without recording the necessary satisfaction as required by Section 14A(2). The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowances made for book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to justify the revised invoice prices due to changes in coal quality, and the director's statement was not a clear admission of over-invoicing.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be well-reasoned, considering the assessee's average net profit ratio and industry averages. Therefore, the Tribunal decided not to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration by a previous ITAT order. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were considered premature. The penalty issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-consideration after the quantum addition attains finality.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that notices were not served. Considering the nature of trade and profit margins, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 4% on the bogus purchases instead of making a 100% addition.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Rule 8D for interest disallowance without recording the necessary satisfaction as required by Section 14A(2). The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowances made for book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 10% of the expenses, considering the nature of the business, the turnover, and the fact that some expenses might be incurred in cash. Interest and penalty grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in cases of unproved purchases, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be taxed, not the entire sales. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 25% GP was considered high.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A). It found that the addition was based on an estimation of profit from alleged bogus purchases, and the assessee had provided evidence of payments made through account payee cheques.
The ITAT held that while dismissal for non-prosecution is permissible, the CIT(A) failed to decide the issues on merit. The appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the liability had not ceased as recovery proceedings were pending before judicial forums during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the fundamental condition for bringing the amount to tax under Section 41(1)(a) was not satisfied.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, as the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not genuine, disallowing the entire amount was arbitrary. The addition should be restricted to the profit element, estimated at 12.5% of the bogus purchases, provided these purchases formed part of sales or closing stock.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee and that the pending Section 12A application was a crucial factor. The matter was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.