Loading ITAT cases…
320 orders · Page 6 of 7
The assessee submitted a letter requesting withdrawal of the appeal after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and receiving Form-3. The Tribunal accepted the request.
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 The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.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 penalty cannot be levied on an addition made on an estimated basis, especially when the assessee's conduct is not contumacious. The penalty levied was set aside.
The Tribunal, following a High Court precedent, treated the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was incorrect as the assessee's own funds exceeded the investments. For administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the disallowance was to be restricted to investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to take up the electronically filed appeal for hearing, as the initial dismissal was due to a procedural lapse that was rectified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard due to notices being sent to an incorrect address. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no expense is claimed by the assessee. It also held that credit for TDS must be allowed if the interest income is disclosed.
The Tribunal followed its own order for a previous assessment year where similar disallowance of interest on unsecured loans was deleted. It found no justification for disallowing part of the interest paid on private borrowings.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act was sustainable. Consequently, the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked proper reasoning. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were non-speaking and could not be decided upon. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were non-speaking and could not be decided upon. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard regarding the enhancement notice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It was held that an appellate authority is duty-bound to decide an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-representation.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The ITAT noted that grounds of appeal were available in Form 35 before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the jurisdictional issue of re-opening and the merits of the cancellation charges. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on both grounds.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. A 12.5% disallowance was considered to meet the ends of justice in this case.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. For AY 2009-10, this was in the interest of justice to provide a hearing. For AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12, the non-filing of appeals in electronic form was treated as a procedural defect that could be cured.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that Section 14A disallowance is only applicable when there is actual receipt of exempt income. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as they could not provide contrary evidence.
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 the issue was not about the permissibility of a revised return under Section 139(5), but whether the assessee's claim could be admitted by revenue authorities. Citing precedents, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for consideration.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases cannot be made, as sales are impossible without purchases. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s action.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by several co-ordinate bench decisions which allow 12.5% of bogus purchases as income. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s conclusion that only 12.5% of the bogus purchase can be added to the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases cannot be made. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s action.
The Tribunal acknowledged that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal must be withdrawn. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, finding that the AO had complied with the procedural requirements. However, it agreed with the assessee that only 12.5% of the bogus purchases should be added to income, not the entire amount.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not made any independent examination or inquiry to substantiate the addition. The CIT(A) also confirmed the addition without proper justification, despite the AO's lack of evidence. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in enhancing the disallowance to 100% based on the Shoreline Hotel case, as the facts were distinguishable. When sales are genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. For AY 2009-10, this was in the interest of justice to provide a hearing. For AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12, the non-filing of appeals in electronic form was treated as a procedural defect that could be cured.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 25% of the non-genuine purchases. The CIT(A) had relied on judicial pronouncements that allowed for such a restriction when sales were made.
The ITAT, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when additions are made on an ad-hoc estimation basis. Following various precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issues concerning the non-grant of TDS credit and the assessment tax amount to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and decision after verification.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, finding that the AO had complied with the procedural requirements. However, it agreed with the assessee that only 12.5% of the bogus purchases should be added to income, not the entire amount.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. For AY 2009-10, this was in the interest of justice to provide a hearing. For AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12, the non-filing of appeals in electronic form was treated as a procedural defect that could be cured.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases cannot be made, as sales are not possible without actual purchases. A 12.5% disallowance was deemed to meet the ends of justice in this case.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s action.
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 ITAT, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
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 ITAT, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was barred as the issues revised had already been considered and decided by the CIT(A) in appeal. The principle of merger applies, preventing revisional powers over matters decided in appeal.
The Tribunal held that assessments made under Section 153A for unabated years must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found in the assessee's premises, the additions were deemed bad in law and deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on estimated profits, stating that the AO cannot arbitrarily estimate profit without rejecting books of account. Regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that only a profit element should be disallowed when sales are not doubted, upholding the 12.5% disallowance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain 12.5% of the bogus purchases addition. It reasoned that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified, as sales are impossible without actual purchases. The 12.5% disallowance was considered to meet the ends of justice given the circumstances.
The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's explanation regarding non-participation in lower proceedings and the claim of uploading the audit report. The matter was set aside to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim regarding the audit report.
The Tribunal held that since the addition to income was made on an estimated basis (12.5% of purchases) and there was no irrefutable material to prove the falsity of the assessee's claim, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the Stamp Duty Valuation was lower than the agreement value, making the addition under Section 43CA unsustainable. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.