Loading ITAT cases…
320 orders · Page 2 of 7
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders on most grounds, finding them covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order of restricting the addition to 25% of the bogus purchases. The case laws relied upon by the revenue were considered distinguishable.
The Tribunal held that when sales are genuine, entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element from non-genuine purchases at 4% for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that when sales are genuine, entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element from non-genuine purchases at 4% for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that interest income from SBI deposits and commission income from MSEB are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case and other similar cases. Penalty and interest proceedings were remitted to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that completed assessments do not abate and that proceedings under section 153A/153C cannot re-adjudicate issues unless fresh incriminating material is found. Therefore, the carry forward of deficits was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from bank deposits is not covered by the principle of mutuality. This is because the banks, as non-members, engage in commercial operations with third parties, thereby breaking the 'privity of mutuality' and violating the conditions for claiming exemption.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 25% was higher than the usual 12.5% estimated by the Tribunal for such cases. Since the assessee did not appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search, not external information confronted to the assessee. Since no such material was found, the assessment under section 153A was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that while purchases were bogus, they were likely made from the grey market and used in production. Therefore, only the profit margin on such purchases, not the entire amount, could be added to the income.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was made on the wrong person, as the income was taxable in the hands of the Estate of Late Vrajlal C. Mehta and not in the hands of the legal heir, Anoop Mehta. The assessment order was quashed as it was initiated with the wrong jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the additional grounds of appeal raised by the revenue were not admissible as they sought to change the complexion of the case and were contradictory to the Assessing Officer's original stand. The Tribunal declined to admit these grounds.
The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be made solely based on Form 26AS if the assessee claims the entry is incorrect and was wrongly made by the payer. The Assessing Officer must examine the genuineness of such transactions.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s estimation of 25% profit was higher than the 12.5% typically estimated by the Tribunal for such cases. Since the assessee did not appeal the CIT(A)'s order, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 12.5% on bogus purchases. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be reasoned and followed a Gujarat High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that information received from the DGIT (Investigation) is from an internal agency, not an external source. Therefore, the exception clause in the CBDT circular does not apply.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order of restricting the addition to 25% of the bogus purchases. The case laws relied upon by the revenue were considered distinguishable.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search, not external information confronted to the assessee. Since no such material was found, the assessment under section 153A was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the appeal on merits after applying his mind to the issues. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that unsold flats, when treated as stock-in-trade by the assessee, cannot be assessed under the head 'income from house property'. Any income derived from stock-in-trade is income from business.
The Tribunal noted that it consistently holds the profit element in such cases to be 12.5%. Since the CIT(A) had already estimated 25%, which was higher, and the assessee had not appealed, the Revenue's grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order of restricting the addition to 25% of the bogus purchases. The case laws relied upon by the revenue were considered distinguishable.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had estimated the profit element at 25%, which was higher than the 12.5% consistently estimated by the Tribunal for such cases, the assessee had not appealed the CIT(A)'s order. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) erred in rejecting the valuation report and the method adopted by the assessee. The TPO's rejection was based on an incorrect application of valuation standards and guidelines.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by submitting all relevant documentary evidence, including confirmations and bank statements, and that the loans were transacted through banking channels. The AO's addition was deemed unjustified as he failed to point out any defects in the submitted evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit element at 12.5% on bogus purchases, considering it to be on the higher side. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not appealed against this order.
The Tribunal held that information received from the DGIT (Investigation) is from an internal agency, not an external source, and therefore does not fall under the exception clause of the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on account of low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that since the purchases were of fabrics, on which VAT is not leviable, the profit element should only be the incidental profit from cash purchases in the grey market. Following a previous order, the Tribunal estimated this profit at 1%.
The Tribunal held that since the purchases were of fabrics, on which VAT is not leviable, the profit element should only be the incidental profit from cash purchases in the grey market. Following a previous order, the Tribunal estimated this profit at 1%.
The Tribunal, with the consent of both parties, decided to remand the appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the dispute based on the final outcome of the Tribunal's decisions for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had applied for registration under section 12A prior to the intimation and that the CIT(A) overlooked this fact. Considering the principles of natural justice and a Supreme Court decision on deemed registration, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that since the purchases were of fabrics, on which VAT is not leviable, the profit element should only be the incidental profit from cash purchases in the grey market. Following a previous order, the Tribunal estimated this profit at 1%.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the non-service of notice under Section 143(2) is a jurisdictional defect and quashed the reassessment for AY 2009-10. For AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for purchases and the AO failed to conduct further inquiries, thus allowing the grounds on merits.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration filed under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was not justified as the AO had made due inquiry and relied on a valuation report from a government-approved valuer. The assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that while the AO doubted the genuineness of purchases, the assessee's business turnover was not disputed. Therefore, the entire purchases could not be disallowed, but only the profit element embedded in them could be considered for addition.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable as the liabilities were either repaid or had not ceased to exist. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made adequate inquiries regarding the CSR expenses and the demerger of business. The assessee had provided sufficient documentation and explanations, which the AO had considered. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary power under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the first proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies when there is a delay in registration. Since the assessee had booked the property and paid a significant portion of the cost earlier, the value on the date of booking should be considered, not the value at the time of registration.
The Tribunal held that since the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was based on an estimate, the assessee could not be accused of concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the two flats, having a single kitchen and entrance, should be construed as one residential house. Consequently, the annual value should be determined at nil as it was self-occupied.
The Tribunal found that the withdrawal was based on a mistaken belief and that the demand was still alive. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the seized document only partially implicated the assessee and that the explanation provided for the figures was related to quoted prices. Given the lack of corroborative evidence and the existence of related appeals, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and was not objected to by the revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously held that the percentage completion method of accounting for TDR sales is permissible and that TDR receipts cannot be considered in isolation from the project costs. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and not clarificatory. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, late payment of employee contributions, if made before the return filing due date, should be allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the rectification application was maintainable as there was a mistake in calculating interest on the loan to the subsidiary. It also directed the AO to allow credit for TDS in the year the income was offered to tax, irrespective of the TDS deposit year.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for construction cost provision without a finding of accrual, remitting the issue for fresh examination. However, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of rent payment disallowance, following previous ITAT decisions.