Loading ITAT cases…
359 orders · Page 7 of 8
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were time-barred due to substantial delays and the lack of a condonation petition. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were time-barred due to substantial delays in filing before both the CIT(A) and the ITAT. No explanation or condonation petition was provided for these delays.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were time-barred due to substantial delays and the lack of any petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence of the alleged share sale transaction by the assessee. The assessee had provided evidence of purchasing shares, not selling them, and the Revenue failed to controvert this.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the addition was made on mere probabilities without concrete evidence. The assessee's failure to discharge its onus was not sufficiently established by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the trading liability was not a case of remission or cessation as the assessee had filed creditor confirmations and the liability was shown as payable. Regarding on-money, the Tribunal found that flats were sold above stamp duty value, variations in price were explained, and buyer affidavits were filed, thus the addition was based on assumption.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 25% of the non-genuine purchases, considering the evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the purchases, considering that sales were not doubted and following previous ITAT rulings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that only the profit margin embedded in such transactions can be taxed, not the entire bogus purchases, especially when sales turnover is accepted.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the AO is directed to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for appeals and that information from DIT(I&CI) is not considered an external source. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on these grounds.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s approach of restricting the profit rate to the differential percentage between bogus and regular purchases. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they received the desired relief in the proceedings giving effect to the section 263 order. The tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving authenticity, the Assessing Officer's estimation of GP was high. The CIT(A) had granted partial relief by restricting the GP on unproved purchases to 12.5%, which was considered fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving authenticity, the Assessing Officer's estimation of GP was high. The CIT(A) had granted partial relief by restricting the GP on unproved purchases to 12.5%, which was considered fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding Card Renewal Fee due to lack of documentary evidence and the inapplicability of the consistency rule. However, it allowed the Business Promotion Expenses, noting that the authorities below failed to examine the credit card statements furnished by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the dealers, the sales turnover and inventory were accepted. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in the transactions could be taxed, and the estimated profit margin was reduced.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the dealers, the sales turnover and inventory were accepted. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in the transactions could be taxed, and the estimated profit margin was reduced.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when additions are made purely on an estimated basis. The inability to prove the source of purchases does not automatically imply an offense under this section.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years. No change in facts was demonstrated by the revenue, and thus, the impugned order deleting the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020 and the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. The Assessing Officer must conclusively prove the quantum of suppressed income for penalty to be leviable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's appeal regarding the Section 14A disallowance was covered by previous decisions in favour of the assessee. The assessee's petition under Rule 27 was dismissed as infructuous because it sought relief beyond what was permissible under the rule.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted by the ITAT, the penalty levied on those additions cannot survive. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the revision order under Section 263 was set aside by the ITAT, the consequential assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 would not survive. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted by the ITAT, the penalty levied on those additions cannot survive. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and, with no objection from the Revenue, allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries despite the assessee providing evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal also noted that two of the lenders were group concerns and the loans were repaid with interest.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. Only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the Revenue failed to prove the assessee had any beneficial interest in the company account. For the joint account, the Tribunal accepted that the funds originated from the assessee's income and savings earned as a non-resident in Abu Dhabi.
The tribunal held that the expenditure on repairs and maintenance was revenue in nature and directed the AO to allow it as such. Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, following the Gujarat High Court's precedent. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the disallowance to 100% based on the Shoreline Hotel case, which was factually distinguishable. It was decided that since sales were accepted as genuine, the entire purchases could not be treated as non-genuine. The profit element embedded in the purchases was to be estimated at 6%.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases, considering the profit embedded in the transactions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this decision.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271G was not justifiable as the assessee faced practical difficulties in furnishing the requested segmental details. The Tribunal noted that the Transfer Pricing Officer could have determined the Arm's Length Price independently if dissatisfied with the benchmarking.
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of an appeal in electronic form is a procedural defect that can be cured. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, directing the assessee to file the appeal electronically.
The tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, stating it was not sustainable as no exempt income was earned and investments were likely funded by own funds. The ad-hoc disallowance of labour/assortment charges was also deleted as the books were not rejected and no specific defects were pointed out.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal before the ITAT, citing their participation in the VSV scheme. The Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for not furnishing all the details as requested by the TPO, given the peculiar nature of the diamond trading business. The insistence on the CUP method was deemed impractical, and the TPO should have explored alternative methods like comparing financial statements of associated enterprises.
The assessee informed the tribunal about filing a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The tribunal acknowledged this submission.
The Tribunal held that since the substantial additions against which the penalty was levied were deleted by the Tribunal itself, the penalty would not survive. For other smaller additions, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that there was a bona fide mistake and no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's remand report did not dispute the evidence provided by the assessee regarding purchases, consumption, sales, and stock reconciliation. Therefore, the disallowance was sustained at 6% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request 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 since the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was based on an estimate and not on concrete evidence of inflated purchases, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be validly imposed.
The Tribunal held that investments yielding no exempt income, such as the partnership firm in this case which resulted in a loss, should be excluded when computing disallowance under Section 14A. Therefore, the additional disallowance made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had settled the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration if the scheme did not resolve the issue.
The Tribunal held that the purchases were genuine as the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentary evidence and banking trails. The information from the Sales Tax Department was not made available to the assessee, and the AO failed to establish any specific omission by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) was introduced as an anti-abuse measure to prevent money laundering and does not apply to genuine transactions of right share issuance to existing shareholders in proportion to their holdings. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the disallowance to 100% based on an inapplicable High Court decision. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element in the non-genuine purchases at 8% and restrict the disallowance accordingly.