Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 7 of 9
The Tribunal held that since the addition for bogus purchases was made on an estimated basis and the assessee's declared gross profit was higher than the estimated profit element, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided some evidence for purchases and the addition was made on an estimated profit basis, it does not constitute concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that if profits attributable to 81% project completion were already taxed in AY 2008-09 due to settlement under Vivad se Vishwas, then nothing further remains to be taxed in the present assessment year. The Tribunal also directed consequential relief for income from maintenance charges.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the 'on-money' addition, finding it was not supported by incriminating material and was covered by previous decisions. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition for non-reconciliation of AIR information, as the amount was accounted for in the books.
The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee commission should be adjusted to 0.5% and that segmental results, not entity-level margins, should be used for benchmarking clinical trial services. The matter concerning clinical trial services was remitted for reconsideration.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal due to restructuring. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the request.
The Tribunal held that the mandatory condition of claiming deduction in the return of income under Section 80A(5) must be fulfilled, even if the assessee is otherwise eligible for the deduction. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) cannot be allowed.
The Tribunal found that it was not clear from the CIT(A)'s order whether the hearing notices were duly served on the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 had been issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases, considering that the corresponding sales were not doubted. This approach was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted as the assessee's own funds exceeded its investments yielding exempt income. For indirect expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the disallowance was to be recomputed based on investments yielding exempt income, not exceeding the exempt income.
The tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects were charitable and predominantly related to education, benefiting both members and non-members. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal as the dispute was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue had issued Form no.3. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed. The Tribunal found the 12.5% rate to be reasonable.
The Tribunal directed the AO to exclude inter-group transactions from the commission income estimation and allowed the telescoping of commission income against income declared in the books. The AO was also directed to verify and allow certain business expenditures.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) to present their case with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition should be made at 12% of the inflated expenses, following the settlement commission's order and previous tribunal rulings on identical facts. For one assessment year, the addition was deleted due to lack of evidence of a cheque receipt.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) relied heavily on investigation reports and statements recorded during searches without conducting further independent verification or providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the deponents. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing sufficient documentary evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that exemption provisions should be interpreted liberally and benefits should not be denied on technical procedural grounds. The subsequent rectification of the procedural defect was also considered.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue's representative conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was initiated beyond the four-year period without demonstrating the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The reassessment proceedings were quashed, and consequently, the additions made were not sustainable.
The tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of interest on NPAs, stating that income cannot be taxed twice. It also confirmed the deletion of salary cost allocation adjustments, finding no specific justification for the AO's proposed higher allocation. The Tribunal further upheld the DRP's deletion of transfer pricing adjustments for both cost allocation and interest on the loan to the AE.
The Tribunal acknowledged that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal must be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were void ab initio because the AO failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. This lack of clarity demonstrated a non-application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a subsequent assessment year. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) on this point was upheld.
The tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal agreed that borrowed funds were used for investments yielding dividend income, as the assessee had negative reserves and significant interest expenses. However, it directed the AO to consider only investments that actually yielded dividend income for the disallowance calculation.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be made only for investments yielding exempt income. Furthermore, the disallowance cannot exceed the amount of exempt income received by the assessee during the year.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be made only for investments yielding exempt income. Furthermore, the disallowance cannot exceed the amount of exempt income received by the assessee during the year.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275 of the Income Tax Act, making it void ab initio. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The AO failed to conduct thorough investigations and the addition resulted in double addition, hence it could not be sustained.
The tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of in light of the scheme.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the Ld. DR's plea, set aside the impugned orders and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee another opportunity to be heard and substantiate their claims.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 25% of the bogus purchases, finding it a reasonable estimation of the profit element. The revenue's appeal was dismissed for lack of new cogent evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided available information and consistently followed its accounting method. The revenue failed to substantiate its addition with a scientific method. Therefore, the addition was restricted to 25%.
The Tribunal treated the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality applies to the society's transactions, and the sale of surplus premises to a new member, even if not an original contributor, is not taxable as income. The cost of land should be deducted when calculating capital gains.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as dismissed and withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the declaration under the scheme is declared bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based merely on suspicion and conjectures, without the Assessing Officer recording his own satisfaction. On merits, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable as the assessee had explained the transaction as a hand loan repayment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO's apportionment of goodwill was without material on record and based on surmises. The Tribunal followed its own previous rulings where similar directions for apportionment were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sought withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Both parties agreed to this course of action.
The Tribunal held that levying a penalty on a dead person with notices issued in their name is without legal mandate. The penalty order was quashed due to the authorities' failure to follow statutory duties and principles of natural justice.
The tribunal noted the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the quantum of exempt income earned by the assessee. The AO was directed to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 2,855.