Loading ITAT cases…
79 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation genuine. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, were approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and wished to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have granted another hearing date instead of dismissing the appeal ex-parte, as it violated the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was quashed and the matter was restored to the AO.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The tribunal noted that if the assessee fails to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons, they can seek restoration of the original appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as required by law. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal due to availing the VSV Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessees' request to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the VSV Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the benefits of the scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by furnishing necessary details like PAN, confirmations, and bank statements for the loans. Since the Revenue did not cross-verify these details, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if any issue remained unresolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including invoices, TDS, and bank payments, to substantiate the expenses. The Tribunal found the assessee's plea that construction could not be completed without the work being done to be compelling.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed at the threshold due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The Revenue did not dispute the tax effect being below the threshold.
The tribunal considered the assessee's submission and application for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal allowed the request for withdrawal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if they fail to avail the VSV benefit for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee PF/ESIC contributions leads to disallowance, following a Gujarat High Court ruling. However, disallowances for non-deduction of TDS on provisions for expenses were allowed in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the premium paid on forward contracts to secure foreign currency liabilities is akin to an insurance policy and is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1). The provisions of Section 43A are not applicable to such premium payments.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative credit societies on investments with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim based on the plain language of the Act and previous judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest expenses was warranted as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments. Regarding the donation deduction, the Tribunal ruled that the disallowance was invalid without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the evidence and without supplying the survey material, allowing the appeal on this ground.
The Tribunal decided on various grounds concerning the taxability of income from the free zone entity, corporate guarantee charges, and depreciation. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed, while the appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided on various grounds concerning the taxability of income from the free zone entity, corporate guarantee charges, and depreciation. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed, while the appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including invoices, TDS, and bank payments, to substantiate the expenses. The Tribunal found the assessee's plea that construction could not be completed without the work being done to be compelling.
The Tribunal held that unutilized CENVAT credit represents the availability of excise credit eligible to be set off against future liabilities. It cannot be adopted for inventory valuation under Section 145A as the effect is revenue neutral. The addition made by the authorities below was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were not sufficient to establish a belief of income escapement, but rather indicated an intent to conduct further inquiry. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not claim any interest expense on the deep discount bonds, the provisions for TDS deduction under Chapter XVII-B of the Act were not attracted. Therefore, the Revenue's ground of appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, was approved. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if any issue remained unresolved.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest expenses is warranted when the assessee's own funds exceed the investments made. However, the disallowance of administrative expenses was upheld.