Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 5 of 9
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 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 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 accepted the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessees' participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the addition was academic as the book profit was negative and MAT provisions did not apply. The deletion of interest was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the inability of the assessee to prove the source of purchases, when sales were genuine, does not automatically mean inaccurate particulars of income were furnished. Additions made purely on an estimate basis do not warrant penalty.
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 6.5%.
The tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases, considering it was based on judicial pronouncements and the AO had not disbelieved the corresponding sales.
The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee is an international transaction and directed the AO to recompute the ALP at 0.5%. It also deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, as no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessees' participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, following the Gujarat High Court's precedent.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the application was not accepted.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the scheme application was not accepted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessees' participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessees' participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and received Form-3. Therefore, it was deemed purposeless to keep the appeals pending.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and received the necessary form. Consequently, the Tribunal found no purpose in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal held that statements recorded during search and transactions recorded in books do not constitute incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A in unabated years. The additions made were therefore without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that statements recorded during search and transactions recorded in books do not constitute incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A in unabated years. The additions made were therefore without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not tenable as the investment was recorded in the books and the AO did not invoke the appropriate section (Section 69B) for undisclosed investments. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was newly incorporated and had not commenced business operations, making it unlikely to generate undisclosed income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal noted that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending as the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases from the alleged dealers.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, following a High Court decision. The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the restricted disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a valid revocable trust and the provisions of Section 61 to 63 are applicable. Therefore, the assessee cannot be assessed as an AOP, and the income is taxable in the hands of the SR holders.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order was within the limitation period as it was counted from the previous rectification order. It also directed the AO to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee while giving effect to the appellate order.
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow travelling expenses as they were debited to the capital account and not charged to profit and loss. Membership and subscription fees were also allowed as they were relevant to the assessee's profession. The issue of house property income was remanded to the AO for further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that MAT credit under Section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act should be computed inclusive of surcharge and cess. This decision followed precedents from the Tribunal's own case and High Courts.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions in the assessee's favor for multiple assessment years. Therefore, no disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance. It noted that the purchases were made on the advice of a contractor and were not for the assessee's own business transactions.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that once the revision order under section 263 was set aside by the ITAT, the assessment order passed in pursuance thereof had no legal standing. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that once the revision order under section 263 is set aside by the ITAT, the assessment order passed in pursuance of it ceases to exist. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on the grounds of natural justice, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits. The Tribunal emphasized that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that six of the comparable companies used by the TPO were not functionally comparable, based on its own prior decisions. It also ruled that foreign exchange gains earned from EEFC accounts were eligible for deduction under Section 10A, following precedent.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty. It followed a co-ordinate bench decision which stated that mere disallowance of purchases on an ad hoc basis does not amount to a deliberate attempt to furnish inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the assessee's sales were not disputed, the profit element in the non-genuine purchases was the appropriate addition, not the entire amount.
The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to follow the benchmark pattern adopted in subsequent assessment years (2012-13 onwards) for determining the arm's length price, after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that unsold flats held as stock-in-trade should be assessed under the head 'income from business' when sold, and not under 'income from house property' by notionally computing ALV. The AO's addition was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and passed without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, thus rendering them illegal. The orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to the defect in the notice, as it did not specify the exact charge for which penalty was initiated. This defect was found to be fatal to the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly distinguished High Court decisions and that only the profit element in bogus purchases should be taxed, as done by the AO. The Tribunal restored the AO's order.
The ITAT, while concurring with the Revenue's submission for dismissal due to non-appearance, granted another opportunity to the assessee on principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly enhanced the addition to 100% for bogus purchases, stating only the profit element can be taxed. Regarding cash payments, the Tribunal found it impracticable to make payments otherwise than in cash due to the nature of the business and material purchased, thus setting aside the disallowance.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. The tribunal relied on judicial pronouncements that allow for estimation of profit element in such cases.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 25% of the purchases, finding that while the purchases were bogus, a 100% disallowance was not justified without proof of no purchase or return of cash. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal followed its own prior decision on identical facts for a different assessment year. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance of non-genuine purchases to 8% of such purchases.