Loading ITAT cases…
320 orders · Page 5 of 7
The Tribunal acknowledged that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessee and the Revenue accepted the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeals and the cross-objection were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to expedite the applications for short TDS credit and advance tax credit, and to grant interest under Section 244A as per law.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure should be allowed as a deduction against interest income under Section 57 of the Act, following its own prior decisions in the assessee's own case for other assessment years.
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 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Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the prayer.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's representative also conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law because they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars) and were therefore vague. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law because they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars) and were therefore vague. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law because they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars) and were therefore vague. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law because they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars) and were therefore vague. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law because they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars) and were therefore vague. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty orders were quashed.
The Revenue requested to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee's representative conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme requires the withdrawal of related appeals once a matter is settled. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the assessee's prayer for withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that for an unabated assessment year, disallowances can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found for the helicopter expenses and depreciation, the disallowance was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the profit element on tainted purchases to 12.5%. This was based on consistent practice of the Tribunal in similar cases and the fact that the assessee did not appeal the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) and cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as it fell below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction before applying Rule 8D(2)(iii) for additional disallowance. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions stating that the AO cannot disallow expenditure far in excess of the assessee's voluntary disallowance without proper satisfaction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that disallowance on an estimated basis due to non-production of suppliers, with payments made through banking channels, does not automatically warrant penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the disallowance to 100% based on a misapplied High Court decision. It ruled that if sales are genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities continued to be charitable in nature even under the amended definition of Section 2(15). Therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act, and the proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a provision to restore it if the Vivad se Vishwas plea is rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had offered the entire sale consideration for tax in the year of transfer. It agreed with the CIT(A) that it is not for the AO to dictate when a businessman should write off a bad debt, as long as the conditions for deductibility are met and the debt has indeed become bad.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 17.5% of the purchases, considering that the assessee had onward sales and a stock register that were not doubted. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this decision.
The Tribunal held that payments to a subsidiary company for research fees were not disallowable under Section 40A(2) as a subsidiary is not a related person. Similarly, marketing and distribution fees were also allowed based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that payments to a subsidiary company for research fees were not disallowable under Section 40A(2) as a subsidiary is not a related person. Similarly, marketing and distribution fees were also allowed based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) and that a crucial legal ground regarding the non-issuance of Section 143(2) notice was not considered. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to sustain only 12.5% of the bogus purchases as a disallowance. It reasoned that since sales were not doubted, 100% disallowance was not appropriate, and the 12.5% estimation met the ends of justice.
The Tribunal noted that no doubt was expressed about the sales and referred to a precedent regarding bogus purchases. The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's right to raise claims not made through a revised return.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for rectification. Since one of the suppliers, Nina Enterprises, was not on the list of bogus parties, the very basis of the addition failed.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 25% of the bogus purchases, as the entire amount was not necessarily profit.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 25% of the bogus purchases, as the entire amount was not necessarily profit.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not properly apply their mind and that the delay should have been condoned. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the impugned purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 12.5%, citing a Gujarat High Court judgment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the impugned purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit, citing a Gujarat High Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempted income and found no merit in the revenue's grounds. It also upheld the deletion of additions for obsolete material and club entrance fees, following the assessee's own case and jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The CIT(A) rightly restricted the addition to the profit element by applying the assessee's average GP rate, as sales were not doubted and purchases must have occurred from the open market. The Tribunal upheld this decision.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 25% of the purchases, considering it represented the profit element in the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeals are required to be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the assessee's prayer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the issue of carrying forward deficits for trusts is settled in favor of the assessee by Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the revenue failed to provide convincing material to prove the 'on-money' payment. The seized documents were not found from the assessee's premises, and no independent valuation was conducted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee has the right to change its method of accounting at any time. The method adopted by the assessee, considering the market value of shares was less than the cost, was deemed proper and within her rights.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeals are required to be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the assessee's prayer.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 25% of the purchases, considering it represented the profit element in the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS scheme and paid the dues. Accepting the assessee's request, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal followed a previous co-ordinate bench decision which held that the genuineness of interest payments and the business purpose of advances were established. Therefore, the interest deduction could not be disallowed.