Loading ITAT cases…
77 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessees' decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the VSV scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Since the assessee did not wish to contest the appeal and the Revenue had no objection, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine as the assessee had opted for the VSV Scheme. However, the Revenue reserves the right to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the scheme's benefits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue had become infructuous because the underlying assessment orders and the CIT's order under Section 263 were set aside or rendered invalid by previous Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the issue to the CIT's file for reconsideration. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to submit the required details, considering the trust's charitable activities and the explanation for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue had become infructuous because the underlying assessment orders and the CIT's order under Section 263 were set aside or rendered invalid by previous Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal found the disallowance to be on the higher side and lacking a reasonable basis, especially for the assessment year 2006-07 prior to the insertion of Rule 8D. The disallowance was reduced to Rs. 15,956.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the DTAA override Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act when they are more beneficial to the assessee. Therefore, the TDS deduction at the DTAA rate of 10% was correct.
The Tribunal held that the provision related to expenditure in respect of which payment was made to persons referred to in Section 40A(2)(b) was omitted by the Finance Act 2017. Following the Apex Court's decision, the Tribunal concluded that an omitted provision is deemed to have never been on the statute book, thus the PCIT's order could not be sustained.
The tribunal rejected the adjournment petition and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It allowed the assessee to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefit for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made necessary inquiries and applied his mind before accepting the revised return. The Pr. CIT could not substitute his own view for that of the AO, especially when the AO had taken a plausible view after due verification. Therefore, the revision order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition. The assessee had furnished additional evidence demonstrating the source of funds in the lender's hands, which was not disproved by the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal rejected the adjournment petition and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefit for a bona fide reason.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's additional evidence, citing the circumstances of the DRI search and arrest. Consequently, the issues related to grounds 2, 3, and 4 were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was cryptic and lacked application of mind on crucial aspects like the mismatch between claimed exemption and firm's declared income, and the assessee's status as a partner. This lack of application of mind rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying the Pr.CIT's action under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were invalid because the addition made by the AO was not based on the original reason for reopening (escapement of capital gains). Therefore, any addition made on other grounds during these invalid proceedings could not sustain.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' requests to withdraw their appeals in accordance with the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was vague and lacked specificity regarding the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The penalty notice was also silent on the nature of the charge, rendering the proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' requests to withdraw their appeals in accordance with the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's written request to avail the benefits of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeals on merit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to business disruption. On merits, it directed the Assessing Officer to apply a GP rate of 20% on unaccounted sales, following a coordinate bench's decision.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to resolve the issue under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and accepted the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed based on the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly confined his assessment to the limited issues for which the case was selected. The Pr. CIT could not expand the scope of the AO's jurisdiction through revision under Section 263. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to business disruption. On merits, it directed the Assessing Officer to apply a GP rate of 20% on unaccounted sales, following a coordinate bench's decision.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which mandates dismissal of pending appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs, was applicable. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of swap loss, considering it a revenue expenditure and notional loss, following Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court precedents. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the gratuity provision disallowance, as the amount represented payment towards opening balance and not current year's expenditure.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if any issue remained unresolved.
The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained as the assessee was not provided with the vendor's statements and was denied an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the conditions for immunity under section 271AAA(2) by disclosing the income and specifying its source. The AO failed to demonstrate how these conditions were not met, thus the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal considered the assessees' submissions and applications for withdrawal, noting their approval under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal requests were allowed in accordance with the scheme's provisions.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 20,000/- for wasting the lower authorities' time.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the validity of the assessment reopening. The issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. However, it granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the difference in interest rates paid to related parties was not unreasonable, especially when similar or higher rates were paid to unrelated parties. The assessee's appeal was allowed based on this justification.
The Tribunal considered the assessees' submissions and applications for withdrawal, noting their approval under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal requests were allowed in accordance with the scheme's provisions.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal proceedings had been set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty proceedings, being consequential, were also set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, referencing the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The assessee was granted liberty to file miscellaneous applications if any issues remained unresolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessees' intention to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The order also allows for restoration of appeals if the scheme benefits cannot be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was noted that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. The assessees were granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals, citing the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. It was clarified that the assessees could file miscellaneous applications to recall the order if any issues remained unresolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals, citing the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. It was clarified that the assessees could file miscellaneous applications to recall the order if any issues remained unresolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified. The assessee was allowed the benefit of Rule 6DD(j) as payments were required to be made on days when banks were closed due to holidays.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the applicability of the CBDT circular. The circular mandates dismissal of pending appeals where the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit.
The Tribunal noted that sales were not disputed and agreed with the assessee's counsel to accept an addition of 8% of the total purchase amount as a reasonable disallowance.