Loading ITAT cases…
359 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Tribunal held that a fall in the value of investments held as stock-in-trade constitutes an admissible deduction. It relied on Supreme Court judgments establishing that anticipated losses, even if not fully crystallized, are deductible for business income computation.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit embedded in accommodation entries at 12.5% of the bogus purchase price. This estimation was considered a fair profit rate for such transactions.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement was not finalized.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The revenue's representative also conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously deleted the quantum addition that formed the basis for the penalty. Consequently, the penalty levied became infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 12.5% of the bogus purchases. It reasoned that since the assessee's sales were not doubted, a 100% disallowance was not justified, and the 12.5% disallowance met the ends of justice.
The assessee made an application to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal after considering the submission and the Department's lack of objection.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity for hearing and erred in classifying the gain as STCG and not allowing deductions for the cost of acquisition. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to pass an order on the merits of the case. The dismissal for non-prosecution was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 5,87,85,000/- on account of on-money. It also upheld the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271D for cash loans, finding that the addition in the quantum assessment was not sustained.
Following the Madras High Court's order, the Tribunal treated the appeal as disposed of by being withdrawn, allowing liberty for restoration if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of carriage fees/channel placement fees was incorrect as it was a case of short deduction of tax, not non-deduction, and the payment was not royalty under the relevant explanation. The disallowance of advertisement and promotional charges was also deleted, following a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 15% of the bogus purchases as an addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's sales were not doubted and payments were made through banking channels, indicating that the profit element on such purchases was the appropriate addition.
The Tribunal, in view of the submissions made by the assessee's counsel and no objection from the Revenue, permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of by being withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favour.
The Tribunal treated the appeals as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to have them restored if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared bad in law. The assessee had already paid the due taxes under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that for vacant properties, the annual value should be considered nil as per Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is entitled to vacancy allowance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 5,87,85,000/- on account of on-money. It also upheld the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271D for cash loans, finding that the addition in the quantum assessment was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities did not fall under the restrictive proviso to Section 2(15) and qualified for exemption under Section 11. The Tribunal followed its own co-ordinate bench's decision in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that since the properties were previously held to be stock-in-trade in earlier proceedings, the legal expenses incurred in relation to them are revenue expenditure and thus allowable. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict disallowance to the amount suo motu disallowed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the properties were previously held to be stock-in-trade in earlier proceedings, the legal expenses incurred in relation to them are revenue expenditure and thus allowable. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict disallowance to the amount suo motu disallowed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made without providing the assessee a proper opportunity for cross-examination, which violates the principles of natural justice. The AO insisted the assessee produce the builder's officials, which was not feasible for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted requisite inquiries and applied his mind to the claim of deduction under Section 80P, especially considering the consistency with prior assessment years. The PCIT's revision order was deemed erroneous as no fresh facts were brought on record to justify the revision.
The Tribunal held that the revision order under Section 263 was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the prescribed period from the original assessment order. The issues raised by the PCIT were not part of the reassessment proceedings.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the merits, especially if Form 35 was indeed signed by the director. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that income from training activities is eligible for Section 10A deduction as it is intricately connected to software export. It also ruled that interest income earned from temporary surplus funds, in the regular course of business, qualifies for Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of reimbursement of expenses not being FTS was decided in favor of the assessee in preceding years. It also found that the Assessing Officer and DRP failed to properly consider the tax rate and the conditions for applying Section 115A.
The Tribunal held that the assessee employer acted with bonafide belief in allowing exemption for LFC, even in cases involving foreign travel or circuitous routes, as per the interpretation of Section 10(5). Therefore, the employer cannot be faulted for not deducting TDS, and the demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) are to be vacated.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made requisite inquiries and applied his mind to the claim of deduction under Section 80P. The PCIT's conclusion that no inquiries were made was not accepted, and the revision order was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain only 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance is not justified, but purchases from the grey market warrant some disallowance.
The Tribunal held that income from training activities is eligible for Section 10A deduction as it is intricately connected to software export. It also ruled that interest income earned from temporary surplus funds, in the regular course of business, qualifies for Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal, following the High Court's precedent, treated the assessee's appeal as withdrawn since the assessee opted for 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 valuation report was not reliable information for reopening the assessment as it failed to consider crucial factors like pending litigation and encroachments. Therefore, the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was deemed invalid.
The assessee's counsel submitted an application to withdraw the appeal due to a dispute resolution under the VSV scheme. The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. It held that the assessee had sufficient own funds to justify the investments in OPCD, thus no disallowance of interest was warranted. It also held that sales promotion and advertisement expenses should be excluded from work-in-progress as per Accounting Standard 2 and are allowable as revenue expenditure.
The majority of the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings, rendering the adjudication on merits academic. The dissenting member found the reassessment valid and restored the Assessing Officer's order.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5%. It followed a coordinate bench's order and noted that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for purchases is not permissible.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) wrongly observed no compliance to notices and that the addition for unrecorded income as per AIR information had infirmities. The Tribunal restored the issue of unrecorded income to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the journal entries represented an assignment of receivables or extinguishment of mutual liabilities between the assessee and its sister concerns, and not actual cash transactions violating the Act. Therefore, the penalties were not justified.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal must be withdrawn. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The AO had examined the transaction and taken a plausible view, which does not make the assessment order erroneous. The twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not satisfied.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the entire bogus purchases. The profit element embedded in such transactions is taxable, and the CIT(A)'s estimation of 5% suppressed profit margin was considered fair and justified.
The Tribunal held that initiating penalty proceedings is a matter of application of mind and satisfaction by the AO, which cannot be done through a rectification order under Section 154. Such an omission is not a 'mistake apparent from record'.
The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment, held that education cess paid on income-tax is not disallowable under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment, held that education cess paid on income-tax is not disallowable under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow the deduction.