Loading ITAT cases…
359 orders · Page 3 of 8
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not disputed the allowability of the claim under Section 80P(2)(d). Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim.
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.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, the profit rate estimated by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) at 12.5% was too high for the iron and steel trading business. The Tribunal reduced the profit rate to 5%.
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 confirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance of interest expenses, subject to verification that the deductee included the interest in its returns and paid taxes. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition for interest on delayed service tax payment, holding it to be compensatory and not penal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases from declared sources, the sales were not disputed. Therefore, only the profit element in such purchases, not the entire amount, should be considered for addition.
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 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 penalty was not sustainable as the additions were merely estimated and the Assessing Officer failed to prove concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
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 partly allowed the disallowance on purchases, restricting it to the profit element, following its own precedent. It allowed the ground regarding designer payments, holding them to be salary not requiring TDS under Section 194J.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted by the appellate authorities, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the advances paid to NSEL had become irrecoverable due to the NSEL scam and the suspension of its trading operations. Therefore, the assessee was justified in writing off the amount and claiming it as a deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It held that since the additions leading to the penalty were deleted, and the remaining sustained addition was on an estimated basis, it could not constitute concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the AO was bound by the scope of limited scrutiny and could not go beyond the specified issues. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous for not examining loans taken and interest capitalization.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves an opportunity to explain the delay in filing appeals, as ex-parte disposal without considering the merits could cause prejudice. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of interest expenditure disallowance, stating that if interest-free funds exceed investments, no disallowance can be made. It directed re-computation of administrative expenses to include only investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance on non-genuine purchases to 12.5%, stating that only the profit element should be considered. For the renovation expenditure, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination, following a similar decision for a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of approval by the payee institution subsequent to the donation does not affect the assessee's right to claim the deduction, provided the approval was valid at the time of payment. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not pay the self-assessment tax on time due to genuine financial stringency and the delay was not intentional. Therefore, no penalty under Section 221(1) read with Section 140A(3) could be imposed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not pay the self-assessment tax on time due to genuine financial stringency and the delay was not intentional. Therefore, no penalty under Section 221(1) read with Section 140A(3) could be imposed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal must be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's approach was hyper-technical and that procedural shortcomings should not deny the assessee access to the DRP, especially when defects can be cured. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision on similar facts.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision in a similar case, treated the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal found the AO's order to be based on surmises and conjecture, lacking cogent material. The CIT(A)'s order was also contradictory. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding only one issue and not adjudicating on the merits of the addition, which was also raised before him. Following the Madras High Court's decision in CIT vs Ramdas Pharmacy, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the subsequent assessment order was favorable. The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that even if a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE) existed, it was tax-neutral because the Indian agents were paid arm's length remuneration. No additional income was taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Following the precedents set by the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court, the disallowance was restricted to the actual dividend income.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. The addition should be restricted to the profit element embedded in such purchases, bringing the gross profit rate on bogus purchases to the same level as genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that since the assessments were unabated on the date of search, additions under Section 153C could only be made if incriminating material was found during the search relating to those assessment years. As no such material was found, the additions were deleted.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the issue back to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases, representing the profit element, was reasonable, especially since the corresponding sales were not disputed. This decision was based on a previous ITAT ruling for the same assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Tema Exchangers Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. (which followed Jagdishprasad M. Joshi) was binding. This decision allowed deduction under Section 80IA for interest income earned on fixed deposits, and the same reasoning applied here.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of R&D expenses was not justifiable on a technical ground like the absence of Form No. 3CM, especially when the assessee had a valid registration for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and ITAT decisions emphasizing that procedural technicalities should not defeat the legislative intent of encouraging R&D.
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 prayer for withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the assessee's appeals. Since the ITAT order restoring the registration was not set aside by the High Court, the Tribunal respectfully followed the precedent.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court in a similar Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme case. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Revenue did not oppose this request.
The Tribunal acknowledged the company's liquidation process and the request for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's precedent, treated the appeals as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that the lease rental income should be treated as business income, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. This was based on the assessee's business activities, its MOA, and previous ITAT rulings in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the addition forming the basis of the penalty had been deleted by the ITAT in the assessee's own case. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.
The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that they wished to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 30% of the bogus purchases. Since the assessee did not appeal the CIT(A)'s order, and the 30% estimation was higher than the usual 12.5% added by the Tribunal, no interference was deemed necessary.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the 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 assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio and cannot be sustained. The Assessing Officer should have framed the assessment in the name of the successor entity, White Crow Research Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to provide cogent reasons or refer to specific provisions of law for disallowing the set-off and making the addition. The CIT(A)'s order was deemed non-speaking and lacking application of mind.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request.