Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 6 of 9
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, ruling that the interest income should be treated as 'Income from business' due to a consistent practice and a nexus between borrowings and lending. Corresponding interest expenditure was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the truck parking terminal is an integral part of the highway and qualifies as an infrastructure facility for the purpose of Section 80IA deduction. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the deduction.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, finding no infirmity in the order. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. The CIT(A) had followed judicial pronouncements, including a Gujarat High Court decision, in making this restriction.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued only one notice, and the assessee could not appear. Considering this, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's sales were not doubted, and the purchases were from unverified sources, only the profit element embedded in the non-genuine purchases should be disallowed. The CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases was deemed reasonable.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases, considering the documentary evidence provided by the assessee and relevant case laws.
The Tribunal held that the difference in value on an overall basis was 8.35%, which is within the tolerance range of 10%. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal held that RPM was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transaction as it involved purchase and resale of a product without value addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated the arm's length nature of the transaction under RPM and deleted the transfer pricing adjustment.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order lacked material discussion on the factual matrix and eligibility for deduction. It restored the matter to the Pr. CIT for reconsideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order lacked material discussion on the factual matrix and eligibility for deduction. It restored the matter to the Pr. CIT for reconsideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the benefit of the ten percent margin difference between the stamp duty value and the declared sale consideration, as provided in the third proviso to Section 50C(1), should be read into Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). The Tribunal also held that these provisions apply retrospectively. However, deductions claimed for development charges and bank interest were disallowed as they did not form part of the cost of acquisition or improvement.
The Tribunal found the addition of 20.77% excessive and unrealistic. It directed the AO to apply a rate of 12.5% on the total purchases, citing consistent views of co-ordinate benches.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is to consider the factual position, including the suit filed for cancellation of sale deeds, and provide a hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the allocation of R&D expenses among different units was baseless and unwarranted. The Tribunal did not delve into the technicalities of the reopening of assessment as the issue was decided on merits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the jewellery, considering the family's background and foreign relatives' affidavits. For the cash expenditure, the Tribunal found that the available cash withdrawals were sufficient to cover the renovation costs.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the scheme application was not accepted.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, while granting liberty to the Revenue to seek recall if exceptions to the circular are applicable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in enhancing the disallowance to 100% based on the Shoreline Hotel case, which was factually different. Following a coordinate bench decision and an order in the assessee's own case for a subsequent year, the disallowance was restricted.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the case on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to cooperate in the disposal of the appeal.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on its merits. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had acknowledged the electronic filing of the appeal after dismissing the manual one.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The assessee's appeal was also dismissed as withdrawn due to their participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the bogus purchases. This was based on the fact that corresponding sales were accepted by the department, implying the profit element was the only loss to the revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the purchase transactions with documentary evidence, and the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. Similarly, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors, leading to the deletion of additions under Section 68.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's representative also conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO to decide the same on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's sales were not disputed, the entire purchases could not be disallowed. Only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be added to income. The AO's disallowance of 12.5% was considered fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly heard by the CIT(A) despite opportunities. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity of being heard by restoring the matter to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the business expenses claimed by the assessee were allowable as they were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and were in line with previous years. However, the interest on fixed deposits was correctly assessed as 'Income from other sources'.
The tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was given another opportunity to present their case, failing which the CIT(A) could adjudicate based on available material.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of ₹50 lacs as per the CBDT circular. The Departmental Representative could not provide any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that if an order passed under Section 263 is set aside, any assessment order made in pursuance to it will not survive. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received acceptance from the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, following precedents that only the profit element should be added back in such cases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if no exempt income is earned. It also confirmed that Section 14A disallowances are not applicable for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the additions were merely estimated and there was no concealment of income. Furthermore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect circular.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received acceptance forms. Since the assessee opted to settle the litigation, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the addition to 5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases. The CIT(A) had considered the evidence and judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own appeal (ITA No. 3523/Mum/2017 dated 02-04-2018). In that decision, the Tribunal had upheld the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which held that the arbitration award of Rs. 28 crores was taxable as 'Income from other sources' under Section 56(1) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the arbitration award was given in consideration of the assessee relinquishing rights and interests in assets not connected to her interest in the firm, and for withdrawing all suits. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that Section 28(iv) could not be invoked, citing the jurisdictional High Court decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v CIT. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was correct in holding the amount taxable under Section 56(1). Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue.
The assessee has obtained a certificate under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, indicating a settlement of the dispute. Therefore, the appeal has become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when additions are made based on an ad-hoc estimation of profit. Since the addition was an estimation of profit on alleged non-genuine purchases without conclusive proof of concealment, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 25% of the non-genuine purchases. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of purchases. The CIT(A) had considered the assessee's submissions and judicial pronouncements, finding the AO's disallowance excessive.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of purchases. The CIT(A) had considered the assessee's submissions and judicial pronouncements, finding the AO's disallowance excessive.