Loading ITAT cases…
359 orders · Page 6 of 8
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to have the appeal restored if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's preliminary objections by a separate speaking order renders the reassessment proceedings bad in law. Following established judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment orders.
The Tribunal held that penalties are not leviable on estimated additions, as no case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars could be made out. The penalties were therefore not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the addition of unaccounted cash receipts was not sustainable. It found a lack of corroborative evidence beyond the statement of a third party and a violation of natural justice due to the denial of cross-examination.
The tribunal restored the case back to the AO for fresh assessment, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. The AO was directed to issue a notice to the assessee and afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were also dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on earlier ITAT judgments in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly applied the precedents regarding the computation of surplus and the treatment of pension fund losses.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's preliminary objections by a separate speaking order renders the reassessment proceedings bad in law. Following established judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment orders.
The Tribunal held that the amount in question was a brought forward balance from earlier assessment years and not a loan advanced during the relevant previous year. Therefore, it did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(22)(e).
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were indeed bogus, only the profit element embedded in them should be taxed, not the entire amount. Relying on co-ordinate bench decisions for diamond traders, the Tribunal directed the AO to tax 3% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. However, since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from the firm was taxable and not exempt. Therefore, the interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds utilized for the firm should be allowed as a deduction against this income, as the firm and partner are separate legal entities for tax purposes.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in disallowing the claim as the AO's findings were based on generalizations and probabilities from an investigation report, not assessee-specific material. Crucial rights like providing copies of statements and cross-examination were denied to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not strike off the irrelevant portions, indicating a non-application of mind. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the bogus purchases. The AO had not doubted the purchases themselves, only their genuineness.
The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, with appropriate adjustments for factors like volume, loyalty, and services, should be applied for transfer pricing. It also affirmed the deletion of disallowances related to overseas support fees and interest on deposits with sister concerns.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The AO had failed to controvert the evidence produced by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the arm's length interest rate for the loans should be LIBOR plus 300 bps, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. Any adjustment beyond this rate was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange gains arising from loan repayment were in the capital field and thus not taxable. It also noted that Section 28(iv) was not applicable to cash benefits. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the arm's length interest rate for the loans should be LIBOR plus 300 bps, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. Any adjustment beyond this rate was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty is not sustainable as the additions were merely estimated additions for unproved purchases. No case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars was made out against the assessee.
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 Tribunal relied on the CIT(A)'s reasoning and the precedent set by the Gujarat High Court.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised an additional ground before the CIT(A) to consider the claim under Section 37. It found merit in this alternative plea and decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on assets of merged entities should be allowed as claimed by the assessee, following previous rulings. It also held that penalty for professional fees paid to Accenture was not sustainable as the fees were allowable as revenue expenditure.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The assessee's counsel informed the Tribunal that the assessee had received Form No. 3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and pleaded for withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal accepted this submission.
The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, with appropriate adjustments for factors like volume, loyalty, and services, should be applied for transfer pricing. It also affirmed the deletion of disallowances related to overseas support fees and interest on deposits with sister concerns.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) as the payee institution was approved at the time of payment. The subsequent withdrawal of approval does not affect the assessee's claim.
The ITAT held that non-filing of an appeal in electronic form is a curable procedural defect. Following precedent, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The ITAT held that non-filing of an appeal in electronic form is a curable procedural defect. Following its own precedents, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the penalty is not sustainable because the assessment order mentioned furnishing inaccurate particulars, while the penalty order stated concealment of income. This discrepancy, where the penalty is levied on a different ground than that for which proceedings were initiated, makes the penalty invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the interest write-off as a business expenditure was a plausible view, especially since it was consistently accepted in prior years. The revision by the Principal CIT was deemed unsustainable as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with a provision to restore it if the scheme's benefit is denied.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction for reopening the assessment under Section 147 as he failed to record his dissatisfaction regarding the assessee's claim of no expenditure for earning exempt income. The Supreme Court's decisions in Godrej & Boyce and Maxopp Investment were relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenses and depreciation were allowable as the borrowed funds were utilized for the assessee's business, even during a temporary lull in business activity. The issue was covered by previous tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal treated the pending cross-appeals as dismissed and withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration is later declared invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the AO had failed to apply his mind to the information received and did not record proper satisfaction that income had escaped assessment. The AO merely jumped to conclusions based on the DGIT's information.
The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty to be non-speaking and lacking application of mind, as it did not discuss the applicability of case law to the facts. The ITAT set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the lease rentals for alloys did not constitute royalty. The intellectual property rights for the bushings were with another entity, and the assessee was merely providing raw materials (alloys) for refurbishment, not licensing any intellectual property.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a profit element of 6% on the alleged bogus purchases, reducing the disallowance from 12.5% to 6%. This was based on the average gross profits of previous years and a prior order for AY 2009-10.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme provides for deemed withdrawal of pending appeals upon settlement.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment of deemed income from unsold units as income from house property, citing jurisdictional ITAT and Supreme Court judgments. However, the appeals were dismissed in limine due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) can only be invoked in the hands of a registered shareholder, which the assessee was not. Therefore, the addition and subsequent penalty were legally untenable.
The Tribunal held that the services provided were project-specific drawings and designs, and no technical knowledge, skill, or know-how was made available to the assessee to apply independently. Therefore, the payments did not qualify as FTS under Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to conclusively prove the genuineness of purchases, the estimated profit margin of 12.5% was excessive. The Tribunal directed that the suppressed profit margin on unproved purchases be taxed at 5%. The issue regarding the quantum of purchases from M/s. Navpad Exports Pvt. Ltd. was remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of 10% of expenses was ad-hoc and lacked specific findings of personal nature, thus deleting it. It also held that the interest expense was for a business-related motor car and the assessee had sufficient own funds for investments, hence no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had paid the disputed tax and the Departmental Representative had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.