Loading ITAT cases…
359 orders · Page 2 of 8
The Tribunal held that the compensation received was for outlays of expenditures incurred due to project delays initiated by Boeing, and the expenses were related to business expansion. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal regarding commission payments, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case.
The assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and Form No. 3 was issued. The assessee wished to withdraw the appeal, which was permitted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision under Section 263 was not justifiable as the issue had already been examined and dealt with by the AO in previous assessment orders. The Tribunal also noted that the PCIT relied on incorrect citations for judicial pronouncements.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 15% of the bogus purchases, considering it a fair estimation of the profit element. The AO's complete disallowance was deemed excessive.
The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against income from any head, not just business income, following amendments to Section 32(2) and a Supreme Court judgment. It also upheld the set-off of brought forward business losses against current business income, as the income was assessable in the current year.
The Tribunal found that the assessee traded on a recognized stock exchange, provided all evidence, and even incurred a loss on the sale. The AO and CIT(A) failed to point out specific defects in the transactions.
The Tribunal held that general administrative expenses are allowable as a deduction in the year incurred and not to be capitalized as part of Work-in-Progress (WIP). The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment related to Information System (IS) charges was not justified, following its earlier orders for preceding assessment years. The Tribunal deleted this adjustment, allowing the relevant grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal found that the facts were unclear regarding the correct entity for assessment and the nature of the business. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on both grounds. It followed previous Tribunal orders regarding VSAT depreciation and the classification of 'Vanda loss'. The cross-objection regarding the deductibility of education cess was allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A), as a quasi-judicial authority, must decide appeals on merits and not dismiss them for default. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside as it was ex parte and non-speaking.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. This was based on High Court precedents and consistent views of co-ordinate benches.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be filed before the ITAT. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were defective as they did not specify the clause under Section 271AAB, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty levied was invalid.
The Tribunal restored the issue regarding notional interest on capital balance to the file of the AO with certain directions, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. The disallowance under Section 14A was also contested.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were incurred for modifying the internal layout of the leased building to suit the assessee's business and did not result in the creation of a new asset or enduring benefit. Therefore, the expenses were revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 was set aside and quashed, the penalty levied based on that order becomes infructuous. Therefore, the penalty is cancelled.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The learned Senior DR did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF/ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance is warranted under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x). The Tribunal relied on Bombay High Court judgments.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had provided complete details and vouchers for the purchases. The AO had not doubted the sales made from these purchases.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had received tangible information indicating escapement of income. However, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 50 Lacs related to M/s Gateway Leasing Private Limited, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the genuineness of the loan.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable based on the CBDT circular regarding low tax effect. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied or the tax effect exceeded the limit.
The ITAT held that a quasi-judicial authority cannot dismiss an appeal for default unless expressly authorized. The CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary evidence, including the appearance of shareholder directors before the AO. The AO's addition was based on flimsy grounds, and the financial position of the shareholders supported their creditworthiness.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that only the suppressed profit on bogus purchases, not the entire amount, should be added. Therefore, the 12.5% profit addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the subscription charges received for access to databases and journals do not constitute royalty. The customers are granted a right to access copyrighted material for personal use, not the right to use or exploit the copyright itself.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF/ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance is warranted under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x). The Tribunal relied on Bombay High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that since the sales made out of these purchases were not doubted, the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition to the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the DVO report clarified that the built-up area of individual flats, including balconies, did not exceed 1000 sq. ft. The Tribunal agreed that the architect's measurement was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on estimated income. Since the addition was based on an estimation of income, the penalty levied by the AO was quashed.
The Tribunal held that once a deduction is allowed in the draft assessment order and there is no contrary direction from higher authorities, the Assessing Officer cannot alter or change that deduction in the final assessment order. The issue of tax credit was restored to the AO for examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including a sale agreement showing a large cash payment by the deceased, to prove the source of funds. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly observed that a witness's poor memory should not penalize the assessee.
The CIT(A) confirmed the profit estimation on bogus purchases but reduced the addition on outstanding bogus purchases from 100% to 25%. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal allowed the Section 80IA claim by following previous co-ordinate bench decisions. It also allowed the club expenses as business expenditure, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that since the assessments for the impugned years had not abated on the date of the search, additions under section 153C could only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. As no such material was identified, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the department had consistently accepted similar commission/brokerage expense deductions in preceding and succeeding years under scrutiny assessments, there was no justification for disallowing it in the current year. An inconsistent approach by the department is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to discharge the complete onus of proving the purchases, the sales made out of these purchases were not doubted. Therefore, the profit element on the bogus purchases was estimated at 5% of the purchases.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction as the AO had made a conscious decision on a best judgment basis. The revisional authority cannot substitute the AO's judgment on the quantum of disallowance, especially when the assessment order was already under challenge before the first appellate authority.
The assessee settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and wished to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the entire sale consideration was for the shares and no part was to be treated as non-compete fee. It also held that the losses on shares of Ken Financial Services Ltd. were genuine and allowable.
The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessments, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the additions in question (except for scrap sale, which was offered by the assessee) were not supported by such material, they were rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to bad debts and finished goods written off.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio due to invalid service of notice under Section 148, as substituted service was used without exhausting ordinary methods and without fulfilling pre-conditions. Furthermore, the reopening was based on an erroneous assumption that the assessee had not filed a return, which was factually incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit rate at 12% on the bogus purchases, rather than adding the entire amount. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this estimation, considering that actual sales had occurred.
The Tribunal held that the entire sale consideration for M/s. Viraj Profiles Ltd. shares was capital gains and not partly non-compete fee. It also allowed the loss claimed on sale and revaluation of Ken Financial Services Ltd. shares.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases might be bogus, the sales made from them were not doubted. Therefore, only a profit element should be added back. The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit rate from 12.5% to 8% of the bogus purchases.
The assessee settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and wished to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings are vitiated due to a defective notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c), as the Assessing Officer failed to strike off the irrelevant limb. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the adjournment application. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of the 5 unreconciled transactions. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the details and make an addition only if any discrepancy was found.