Loading ITAT cases…
78 orders · Page 1 of 2
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 under the scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding that the AO had a bona fide belief of escaped income. The deduction was disallowed based on evidence of the institution's fraudulent practices, including a statement from its treasurer.
The Tribunal held that the payment was made through banking channels and was supported by documentary evidence, including TIPL's declaration and balance sheet. The AO failed to disprove the genuineness of the transaction, and the primary condition for invoking Section 69 was not met.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, was approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals as their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were approved. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals in accordance with the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The assessees were granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if any issue remained unresolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The expenses were held to be revenue in nature and allowable.
The ITAT allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that the genuineness of the commission expenses could not be doubted without tangible material on record, especially since similar payments were allowed in preceding and subsequent years. The tribunal noted that the authorities below did not exercise their powers to gather information from third parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of the appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the interest rate of 24% on unsecured loans from relatives was not excessive or unreasonable, considering the risk factor and lack of collateral. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior year, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of their appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's educational qualification and status, felt an opportunity should be given to present the case properly. Therefore, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of their appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of their appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of their appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a 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 a liberty to seek restoration if the VSV Scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to seek restoration if the VSV scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as requested by the assessees. The dismissal was based on the assessees opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of their appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that Section 54F(4) is not attracted if the intention is to invest in a new property within the stipulated period, even if the unutilized amount was not deposited in the capital gains account before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, noting that their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme had been approved. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving the alleged cash transactions with direct or circumstantial evidence. The addition was based on conjectures and surmises without establishing a cogent nexus between the searched person and the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving the alleged cash transactions with direct or circumstantial evidence. The addition was based on conjectures and surmises without establishing a cogent nexus between the searched person and the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the issue of shares in a scheme of amalgamation. The provision is intended to tax unjustified premiums charged on share issues, not transactions arising from court-approved amalgamation schemes.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals, noting that their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme had been approved. The assessees were granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications if any issues remained unresolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the transaction of granting interest-free loans to associated enterprises was an international transaction. However, it also noted that the issue regarding interest-free loans had been decided in favor of the assessee in a related appeal. The Tribunal also held that corporate guarantee given to an associate enterprise was an international transaction.
The Tribunal held that the transaction of granting interest-free loans to associated enterprises, even if in the nature of quasi-capital, falls under transfer pricing provisions. However, specific grounds related to corporate guarantees and deemed dividends were decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had indeed called for details regarding the working of capital gains and investments made during the year, as evidenced by the notice issued under section 142(1). The assessee had submitted all the required details, and the AO, after considering them, was satisfied and passed the assessment order. While the AO might not have elaborately discussed every aspect, the details were available on record, indicating that the AO had applied his mind. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT, before invoking section 263, must examine the AO's order on merits and form a categorical finding with valid reasons. In this case, the CIT had not done so and had instead relegated the task of finding the error to the AO. The Tribunal quashed the impugned order passed under section 263 and restored the original assessment order passed under section 143(3).
The Tribunal held that the transaction of granting interest-free loans to associated enterprises was an international transaction. However, it also noted that the issue regarding interest-free loans had been decided in favor of the assessee in a related appeal. The Tribunal also held that corporate guarantee given to an associate enterprise was an international transaction.
The Tribunal held that the transaction of granting interest-free loans to associated enterprises was an international transaction. However, it also noted that the issue regarding interest-free loans had been decided in favor of the assessee in a related appeal. The Tribunal also held that corporate guarantee given to an associate enterprise was an international transaction.
The Tribunal noted that the capital gains issue for AY 2006-07 was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, rendering the appeals for subsequent years academic. For the share profit issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee had settled the dispute under the VSV scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the capital gains issue for AY 2006-07 was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, rendering the appeals for subsequent years academic. For the share profit issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee had settled the dispute under the VSV scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the capital gains issue for AY 2006-07 was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, rendering the appeals for subsequent years academic. For the share profit issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee had settled the dispute under the VSV scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the capital gains issue for AY 2006-07 was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, rendering the appeals for subsequent years academic. For the share profit issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee had settled the dispute under the VSV scheme.
The Tribunal held that the transaction of granting interest-free loans to associated enterprises was an international transaction. However, it also noted that the issue regarding interest-free loans had been decided in favor of the assessee in a related appeal. The Tribunal also held that corporate guarantee given to an associate enterprise was an international transaction.
The Tribunal held that the transaction of granting interest-free loans to associated enterprises was an international transaction. However, it also noted that the issue regarding interest-free loans had been decided in favor of the assessee in a related appeal. The Tribunal also held that corporate guarantee given to an associate enterprise was an international transaction.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The withdrawal was permitted in accordance with the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal noted that the capital gains issue for AY 2006-07 was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, rendering the appeals for subsequent years academic. For the share profit issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee had settled the dispute under the VSV scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the capital gains issue for AY 2006-07 was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, rendering the appeals for subsequent years academic. For the share profit issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee had settled the dispute under the VSV scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to pursue 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the construction loss claimed in the current year was offered to tax in subsequent years. Disallowing the loss would lead to double taxation, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating proceedings under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made substantial expansion in a previous year, which constituted a 'fresh initial assessment year' for claiming 100% deduction as per Supreme Court decisions. The AO had correctly allowed the deduction.