Loading ITAT cases…
359 orders · Page 8 of 8
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
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.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) is not applicable to the assessee as it is a cooperative credit society and not a cooperative bank as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal found that although opportunities were provided, the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A). Considering the additions made by the AO and the assessee's submissions, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing necessary evidence to substantiate the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the shareholders. The additions made under Section 68 and consequential additions under Section 69C were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that disallowances of provisions for expenses and donations enhance the business income. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) should be recomputed on this enhanced income, following CBDT Circular No. 37/2016 and High Court judgments.
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 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.