Loading ITAT cases…
339 orders · Page 3 of 7
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add only the profit element (12.5%) on the bogus purchases, rather than the entire amount. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced corresponding sales bills and that the revenue's reliance on certain precedents was distinguishable.
The Tribunal held that reopening assessments beyond four years requires the Assessing Officer to demonstrate the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Since the reopening was based on audit objections and a change of opinion without new incriminating material, it was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on surveillance fees, finding the change in accounting policy to be bonafide. However, it modified the order regarding TDS claim, directing that it should be restricted to the income offered in the current year and the balance in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. It noted that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance is not permissible, and 12.5% was considered to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and evidence, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The ITAT admitted the additional evidence, citing principles of natural justice and the need for the assessee to present their case. The disputed issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for examination on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case. Principles of natural justice require providing another opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 17 days in complying with the notice, explained by the bonafide reason of shifting office premises, was a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) could not be sustained.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a coordinate bench's order in similar circumstances. It was held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted, and a 12.5% disallowance was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), they are allowable as deductions. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is not applicable retrospectively to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the bank account belonged to the assessee's mother, and the assessee was only a second holder for administrative convenience. The cash deposits were considered to be the mother's life savings, and the explanation could not be disputed.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not genuine, the sales were not doubted. Therefore, a 100% addition was excessive. The Tribunal restricted the addition to the estimated profit element of 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal found that the payments treated as unexplained expenditure were indeed part of the turnover and directed the AO to delete the addition. Regarding the estimation of income, the Tribunal reduced the addition from 5% to 2% of the turnover.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued to a non-existent person and an assessment order passed based on such notice are bad in law. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on fixed deposits should be treated as 'business income' as it is linked to the business operations. It also held that business losses claimed on account of depreciation capitalized to work-in-progress are allowable, especially when the assessee has consistently followed a particular accounting method.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Section 80P deduction, agreeing that the distinction in rights between ordinary and nominal members negated the principle of mutuality. The society's activities were considered akin to a finance business rather than a cooperative society.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment initiated by an Income Tax Officer without jurisdiction (ITO, Bareilly) was bad in law. Since the notice under Section 148 was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer, the reassessment framed by the jurisdictional AO is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add only the profit element (12.5%) on the bogus purchases, rather than the entire amount. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced corresponding sales bills and that the revenue's reliance on certain precedents was distinguishable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) as the payee institution was approved at the time of donation. The subsequent withdrawal of approval does not affect the assessee's claim, following established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, finding the issue to be covered by a previous decision on identical facts. The disallowance of the donation was confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction, agreeing with the lower authorities that the donation was part of a scheme to claim bogus deductions. The Tribunal noted that the recipient trust was found to be bogus and had not carried out any charitable activities.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. For payments to a foreign subsidiary, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable as it was based on a change of opinion without tangible material. However, it upheld the principle of levying deemed rent on unsold stock but directed the AO to recompute the rental value based on municipal ratable value.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction, agreeing with the lower authorities that the donation was part of a scheme to claim bogus deductions. The Tribunal noted that the recipient trust was found to be bogus and had not carried out any charitable activities.
The Tribunal held that for vacant properties, the annual rateable value for income tax purposes should be calculated based on the municipal rateable value, not the market rental value of furnished flats. This decision was based on jurisdictional High Court precedents.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding labour charges, finding that while some additions were upheld, the genuineness of certain outstanding liabilities for subcontract payments was substantiated. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the cooperative society's activities did not satisfy the principle of mutuality because nominal members had different rights than ordinary members. Consequently, the deduction under Section 80P was rightly disallowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add only the profit element (12.5%) on the bogus purchases, rather than the entire amount. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced corresponding sales bills and that the revenue's reliance on certain precedents was distinguishable.
The Tribunal noted that a moratorium had been declared by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), prohibiting continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the present appeals were not maintainable as they were not filed by the authorized IRP.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal held that passing journal entries to record liabilities does not amount to acceptance of loans or deposits of money, and thus does not violate Section 269SS. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause under Section 273B, and the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including PANs, confirmations, bank statements, and share allotment records, to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The mere non-appearance of creditors before the AO does not negate the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including PANs, confirmations, bank statements, and share allotment records, to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The mere non-appearance of creditors before the AO does not negate the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including PANs, confirmations, bank statements, and share allotment records, to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The mere non-appearance of creditors before the AO does not negate the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including PANs, confirmations, bank statements, and share allotment records, to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The mere non-appearance of creditors before the AO does not negate the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including PANs, confirmations, bank statements, and share allotment records, to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The mere non-appearance of creditors before the AO does not negate the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including PANs, confirmations, bank statements, and share allotment records, to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The mere non-appearance of creditors before the AO does not negate the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including PANs, confirmations, bank statements, and share allotment records, to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The mere non-appearance of creditors before the AO does not negate the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT wrongly invoked revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The AO had conducted a detailed inquiry and taken a permissible view, and the Pr. CIT could not substitute his own opinion or direct further inquiry when the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that passing journal entries to record liabilities does not amount to acceptance of loans or deposits of money, and thus does not violate Section 269SS. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause under Section 273B, and the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).