Loading ITAT cases…
31 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. This was in accordance with the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal allowed exemption for DEPB, Duty Drawback, and DEPB rate difference income to the assessee. For other grounds, the Tribunal either allowed the assessee's appeal or dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on prior decisions and concessions.
The Tribunal held that the revenue cannot tax the share of beneficiaries in the hands of the trust while not taxing the majority of beneficiaries. The trust, being a determinate trust, cannot be charged to tax merely because beneficiaries have not claimed their share.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the adjustments made were tax neutral, resulting in no change in tax liability. The Cross Objections were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. This was in accordance with the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that the land was not a capital asset, supported by evidence and case laws. Therefore, the penalties imposed were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS statements is valid, even if the machinery provision in Section 200A was amended later. The charging section (234E) is not subservient to the machinery section (200A).
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), following its own previous decisions on identical facts for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal held that a developer of an SEZ, whose approval covers development, operation, and maintenance, is eligible for deduction under Section 80IAB for income derived from these activities.
The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was based were subsequently deleted by the Tribunal itself, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) had no basis and was therefore cancelled.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision, holding that only the profit element embedded in the on-money receipts should be taxed. It accepted the assessee's declared profit of 8% as reasonable, overturning the CIT(A)'s 20% estimation.
The Tribunal held that the order passed under section 263 was not maintainable because section 14 of the IBC imposes a moratorium on fresh proceedings against a corporate debtor once IBC proceedings have commenced. Therefore, the PCIT's order was quashed.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision, holding that only the profit element embedded in the on-money receipts should be taxed. It accepted the assessee's declared profit of 8% as reasonable, overturning the CIT(A)'s 20% estimation.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because interest expenses were allowed on loans that were subsequently treated as non-genuine and added to income. The Pr.CIT was justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot invoke Rule 8D without first rejecting the assessee's suo moto disallowance with cogent reasons. The AO's action was found to be in violation of Section 14A and Rule 8D.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove the assessee's explanation was false with cogent reasons before invoking the deeming provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c). Since the AO did not establish the falsity of the assessee's bona fide belief, the penalty could not be invoked.
The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred to earn exempt income should not be added for computing book profit under Section 115JB, following a Special Bench decision. For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal restricted it to the amount computed by the assessee and the actual administrative expenses incurred.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had completed the necessary formalities under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to resolve the issue. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was dismissed at the threshold.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the revenue's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, allowing the assessee to avail the benefits of the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals and the cross-objection as withdrawn. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed in limine.
The tribunal held that the guarantee fees paid were revenue expenditure, following previous decisions. Regarding prior period expenses, the tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination due to lack of sufficient details from the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme's benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals and the cross-objection as withdrawn. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed in limine.
The tribunal held that the guarantee fees paid were revenue expenditure, following previous decisions. Regarding prior period expenses, the tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination due to lack of sufficient details from the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and application for withdrawal of the appeal. In light of the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, the request for withdrawal was allowed.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision which allowed 50% of the cost of improvement for similar facts. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow 50% of the cost of improvement.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts for a prior assessment year. The previous ruling favored the assessee, noting that the Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of account.
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 held that merely because an expenditure was disallowed as capital instead of revenue, it does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) if there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars with intent to evade tax.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without a speaking order. Even in the absence of the assessee, the CIT(A) should have examined the assessment record and provided reasons for the decision.