Loading ITAT cases…
177 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 25% of the bogus purchases, finding it judicious and correct. It was held that 100% addition of bogus purchases is not justifiable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing documentary evidence for the share transactions. The revenue failed to discharge its onus to disprove the genuineness of the transactions, especially since the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine third-party witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the additions.
The Tribunal held that if no exempt income is earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can be made. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects were in harmony with its role as a Self-Regulatory Organisation (SRO) for promoters, as mandated by MahaRERA. The Tribunal found that the activities were for the benefit of a section of the public and not specific individuals, aligning with the definition of charitable purpose.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing documentary evidence for the share transactions. The revenue failed to provide cogent material to disprove the genuineness of the transactions and denied the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements formed the basis of additions.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) applies to co-operative banks seeking exemption, not to housing societies earning interest from them. Therefore, the PCIT erred in his interpretation and revisional order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing documentary evidence for the share transactions. The revenue failed to provide cogent material to disprove the genuineness of the transactions, especially without allowing cross-examination of third-party witnesses.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of calculating interest under Section 244A, a 'month' should be interpreted as a period of 30 days, not a British calendar month. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the CIT(A)'s direction to verify records was not an appealable order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. They found this approach justifiable, citing precedent from the Gujarat High Court and other tribunals, which suggests that 100% disallowance is not appropriate in such cases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on previous orders in the assessee's own case confirmed by the jurisdictional High Court. It was held that the assessee cooperative society did not fall within the restrictions of Section 80P(4).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing documentary evidence for the share transactions. The revenue failed to provide cogent material to disprove the genuineness of the transactions, especially without allowing cross-examination of third parties.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The revenue failed to discharge its onus to disprove the transactions, and the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action of estimating the profit element on bogus purchases is supported by jurisdictional High Court judgments. It found that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence for the genuine transactions of share purchase and sale. The revenue failed to discharge its onus to disprove the genuineness of the transactions. The additions were made based on third-party statements without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had decided the appeal ex parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the issues to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the disputed purchases, following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this decision.
The Tribunal held that penalty is not leviable when income is estimated, citing decisions from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and Gujarat High Court. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in accepting new submissions without obtaining a remand report from the AO, especially since the addition was initially agreed upon. The issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished the required details for the expenditure on free samples. Considering the negligible percentage of expenditure to turnover and the business practice, no disallowance was justified.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when an ad-hoc estimation is made, as in this case where the profit element on alleged bogus purchases was estimated at 12.5%. Such estimation does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when an ad-hoc estimation is made, as in this case where the profit element on alleged bogus purchases was estimated at 12.5%. Such estimation does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the facts of the current assessment year were identical to earlier years where the Tribunal had ruled in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income is earned or receivable in the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed on gross total income, restoring the issue to the AO for fresh consideration based on the Supreme Court's decision. It also held that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244A till the date of refund cheque issuance, as there was a delay in granting the refund.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the Assessing Officer issued a generic and vague show cause notice without striking off inapplicable words, indicating a non-application of mind. Therefore, the penalty order was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the payment of Rs. 80 lakhs was incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the capital asset, as it was necessary to remove an encumbrance and perfect the title. Therefore, it is an allowable deduction under Section 48(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee also paid interest at 18% to unrelated parties, the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) for payments to related parties was not justified. The provision is attracted only when payments to related parties are at a higher rate than prevalent market rates.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the loss incurred in acquiring TDR was in the regular course of the assessee's business as a builder and developer. Therefore, the claim of ₹42,00,000/- was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A). Since the quantum addition on which the penalty was based was deleted by the ITAT, no penalty is leviable.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for proportionate premium on ZCCBs written off, considering it as interest in nature. The disallowance under Section 14A was also allowed in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on surmise and conjecture, as the authorities below did not cogently explain why earlier withdrawn cash could not be deposited or why the timing of deposits was suspicious. The assessee's claim of receiving rent in cash was also not adequately disproven.
The Tribunal held that the commission payments to foreign agents for procuring export orders in foreign countries were not taxable in India. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added to the book profit computed under Section 115JB. The AO's action of making such an addition under Section 154 was also deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal, following its decision for the earlier assessment year, restricted the disallowance on non-genuine purchases to 3%. This was based on the understanding of profit margins in the diamond industry and the report of a task group.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty order was also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal confirmed the reopening of the assessment but found the CIT(A)'s order contradictory regarding the profit margin. It held that a 3% disallowance on the alleged bogus purchases would be appropriate, considering the industry profit margins.
The Tribunal held that if the AO had issued a questionnaire, received satisfactory replies, and examined the details of share transactions, the Pr.CIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because they disagree with the AO's plausible view. The twin conditions for Section 263 were not met.
The Tribunal held that when the assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation, the Assessing Officer should refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The issue was remitted back to the AO for referring the valuation to the DVO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is to decide the application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and received the relevant form. Therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the appeals pending.
The tribunal, following a High Court precedent, treated the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favour.
The Tribunal held that payments made by the assessee towards the face value of meal vouchers to affiliates do not fall under the ambit of section 194C as they are not payments for 'work'. The assessee acts as a facilitator and custodian of funds, not as a party receiving services for which tax is deductible.
The Tribunal held that both appeals suffered from low tax effect, as the disputed amounts were below the monetary limits specified by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the case on merits and failed to consider the grounds of appeal, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the case on merits and failed to consider the grounds of appeal, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the evidence.
The Tribunal decided on several issues, allowing some claims for the assessee, dismissing others, and remanding some for further verification. Notably, sales tax exemption benefits were treated as capital receipts, and Section 80IA deductions for rail systems were allowed in favor of the assessee, following earlier precedents.
The Tribunal decided on several issues, allowing some claims for the assessee, dismissing others, and remanding some for further verification. Notably, sales tax exemption benefits were treated as capital receipts, and Section 80IA deductions for rail systems were allowed in favor of the assessee, following earlier precedents.
The Tribunal decided on several issues, allowing some claims for the assessee, dismissing others, and remanding some for further verification. Notably, sales tax exemption benefits were treated as capital receipts, and Section 80IA deductions for rail systems were allowed in favor of the assessee, following earlier precedents.
The Tribunal held that the addition was solely based on the AO's opinion of low profit and not on any finding of suppressed income or inaccurate particulars. Agreeing to an addition does not automatically warrant penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal decided that the issue regarding disallowance under Section 43B was infructuous as it was decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction under Section 80IA, following a coordinate bench's decision. However, the Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal regarding the levy of interest under Section 234D, following a jurisdictional High Court decision.