Loading ITAT cases…
320 orders · Page 4 of 7
The Tribunal, following its own previous decision in the assessee's case, restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to ascertain details of assets given on rent and allow the claim under Section 24(a) if substantiated.
The Tribunal disposed of the assessee's appeals as withdrawn due to the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, and the cross-objection was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's membership is not arbitrarily restricted and that its objects and activities are for the general public utility, aligning with charitable purposes. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to genuine hardships. For bogus purchases, it was held that only a percentage of profit should be added, and a 3% GP was applied. Additions on account of miscellaneous receipts were deleted as income was already estimated on turnover.
The Tribunal held that the interest income should be treated as business income, not income from other sources, as it was linked to business operations and funds borrowed for business purposes. The interest income was directed to be credited to the Work In Progress (WIP) account.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made in an unabated assessment year in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was without valid jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating Section 263 proceedings as the issue of short-term capital loss was not part of the limited scrutiny scope. The AO had confined his examination to the selected limited issues as per CBDT instructions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering it a reasonable estimation of the profit element. The revenue failed to provide any new evidence to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's representative also agreed to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's representative also agreed to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment without communicating reasons and providing an opportunity for objections is invalid. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment orders as they were passed in violation of legal principles.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to supply reasons for reopening the assessment, despite the assessee's request, vitiated the assessment proceedings. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the reassessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to communicate the reasons for reopening the assessment, despite the assessee's requests, violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the penalty matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate their case, failing which the CIT(A) could decide based on available material.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment without communicating reasons and providing an opportunity for objections is invalid. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment orders as they were passed in violation of legal principles.
The Tribunal permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to file its rebuttal to the show-cause notice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the PCIT for de novo adjudication, with all contentions left open.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering it a reasonable estimate of the profit element. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the interest-free advances were made out of interest-free funds available with the assessee. Following its own previous decisions on identical issues for the assessee, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following a Madras High Court ruling on the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal.
The tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was settled under the VSV Scheme, the penalty appeal becomes infructuous. Therefore, the penalty appeal is dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had confined the assessment to the limited issues for which the case was selected. The PCIT cannot broaden the scope of the AO's jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiry and taken a plausible view, thus the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the PCIT's order under section 263 was deemed invalid.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by accepting additional documents and submissions without giving the AO an opportunity to verify them. This vitiated the CIT(A)'s order, making it legally unsustainable. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The CIT(A) held that since the assessee declared corresponding sales and the AO did not doubt consumption, only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be disallowed, not the entire amount. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's opinion was misconceived as the assessee's sister had an opening balance of Rs. 15 Lacs, and the total amount of Rs. 192.70 Lacs was supported by documents filed during assessment. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal was accepted.
The Tribunal held that tax authorities are bound by the decisions of higher appellate authorities and must follow judicial discipline. The Pr. CIT's action of invoking Section 263 despite settled issues in favour of the assessee, and despite appeals pending before the High Court, was contrary to these principles.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 10A. It also ruled that penalty deleted by the CIT(A) for certain disallowances would not survive as the quantum appeals were decided in favour of the assessee. Interest under Section 234D was held to be applicable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the issues were covered by the APA. The Learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the issue on merits was in favour of the assessee, citing decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd. and The Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors., which clarified that for a cooperative bank to be excluded under Section 80P(4), it must possess a license from the RBI to conduct banking business. The Tribunal noted that the revenue had not made out a case that the cooperative bank in question was licensed by the RBI. Therefore, the provisions of Section 80P(4) could not be imported to deny the deduction. Since the issue on merits was decided in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal found no basis for the PCIT to exercise jurisdiction under Section 263. Consequently, the order of the learned PCIT was set aside, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, the AO and CIT(A) did not adequately verify the parties. The Tribunal estimated a profit rate of 5% on the bogus purchases, considering the nature of the assessee's business and potential savings from grey market purchases.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 147 as the notice was issued after four years from the end of the assessment year, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the University had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing its returns, citing its bonafide belief regarding exemption and the complexity of its accounting processes. The Tribunal found that the penalty was not leviable in such circumstances, relying on various judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that due to the ITAT's prior order, the assessment order and the Revenue's appeal had become infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, the AO and CIT(A) did not adequately verify the parties. The Tribunal estimated a profit rate of 5% on the bogus purchases, considering the nature of the assessee's business and potential savings from grey market purchases.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and verification, and the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) were not applicable to the hybrid instrument issued by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. It reasoned that 100% disallowance is not justified when sales are not doubted, and grey market purchases lead to savings for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that book profit for MAT computation cannot be tinkered with or adjusted beyond the provisions of Explanation (1) to Section 115JB. Decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court were cited to support this.
The Tribunal held that the additional income from 'on-money' relates to the same eligible housing project for which deduction under section 80IB(10) was already claimed and allowed. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction on this enhanced business income.
The Tribunal held that the additional income from 'on-money' relates to the same eligible housing project for which deduction under section 80IB(10) was already claimed and allowed. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction on this enhanced business income.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. For bogus purchases, the addition solely based on a third-party statement without opportunity for cross-examination is not sustainable, especially when the assessee provided supporting documentation and had already offered gross profit to tax. Additions to book profit under Section 115JB were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing TDS returns due to complexities in obtaining details after a survey and paying the TDS amount twice. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO took a possible and plausible view in allowing the set-off of brought forward losses, which was in conformity with a favorable High Court judgment. Therefore, the CIT lacked jurisdiction to revise the order under Section 263.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, finding no infirmity in the order. The Tribunal relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.