23 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order regarding the non-examination of the loss returned on the sale of shares of Neeman BV Ltd., finding the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. However, for other issues, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order, finding the revisionary jurisdiction not properly invoked.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and a certificate was issued by the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued a certificate under the scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received a certificate. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued the necessary certificate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3 under the Act. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal, and the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees having availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing relevant forms.
The tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees having availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing relevant forms.
The tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees having availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing relevant forms.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal, and the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees having availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing relevant forms.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees having availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing relevant forms.
The tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees having availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing relevant forms.