Loading ITAT cases…
190 orders · Page 2 of 4
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary forms. Since the scheme provides for settlement, the tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if Form 3 was not received or for other reasons under the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if Form 3 was not received or for other reasons under the scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the issues in the appeals had been settled under the MAP. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the capital gains were substantively assessed in AY 2011-12 and that assessment became final, a protective assessment for the same gains in AY 2015-16 was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order giving effect to the ITAT order was bad in law as it was passed without issuing a draft assessment order, which is a mandatory procedural requirement under Section 144C(1) of the Act. This deprived the assessee of their right to file objections with the DRP.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that no purpose would be served in keeping it pending. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to make proper inquiries regarding prior period expenses and TDS on interest payments, justifying the Pr.CIT's action under Section 263. However, the Pr.CIT's observations regarding Section 43B were quashed as the assessee was not put on notice.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order giving effect to the ITAT order was bad in law as it was passed without issuing a draft assessment order, which is a mandatory procedural requirement under Section 144C(1) of the Act. This deprived the assessee of their right to file objections with the DRP.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to reconsider the inclusion of certain comparable companies and to grant working capital adjustment after verification. The Tribunal found functional comparability for one company and acknowledged the settled law on working capital adjustments.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if Form 3 was not received or for any other reason under the VSVS.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if Form 3 was not received or for other reasons under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that FTS income is taxable on a receipt basis as per the India-Germany DTAA, overriding domestic tax laws. The addition made by the tax authorities on an accrual basis was therefore not justified.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary forms. Since the scheme aims to settle litigation, the tribunal found no purpose in keeping the appeals pending.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary forms. Since the scheme provides for settlement, the tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's registered office shifting. It held that the levy of interest under Section 234E for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, should be reconsidered in light of the Karnataka High Court's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would withdraw the appeal in due course. Since no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending, it was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, based on the assessees' counsel's request. This dismissal was with the liberty to seek recall of the order if issues arose with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the designated authority had accepted the same. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal agreed with the parties to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall if Form 3 is not received or for other reasons under the scheme.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of notional interest on receivables to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration, directing them to follow specific judicial precedents. For depreciation and other expenses, the Tribunal directed the assessee to furnish necessary documentation to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10AA of the Act in respect of the voluntary transfer pricing adjustment made by it. This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case and other similar cases.
The Tribunal agreed with the parties to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall if Form 3 is not received or for other reasons under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order was non-speaking and that generating surplus or collecting fees are not valid grounds for refusing 80G recognition. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and would withdraw the appeal. Therefore, no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, based on the assessees' counsel's request. This dismissal was with the liberty to seek recall of the order if issues arose with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was non-cooperative, there was some truth to the claim that cash deposits were related to agricultural trading activities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for further examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the Assessing Officer's statement to keep the demand in abeyance as a bonafide reason for the delay. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54F on all the flats received under the JDA, as the word 'a' in Section 54F should be understood in plural prior to the amendment in 2015. Consequently, there would be no taxable long-term capital gain.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB is not applicable to companies like the assessee, engaged in electricity generation, as they are excluded from preparing P&L accounts as per Schedule VI of the Companies Act and instead follow their regulatory acts. This aligns with amendments made to Section 115JB.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of 'Asian Business Exhibition and Conferences Limited' from the comparables for marketing support services. It also upheld the DRP's deletion of an addition made under Section 40A(7) based on a previous year's decision.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine the revised TDS return filed by the customer and verify the correct turnover reflected in Form 26AS.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would withdraw the appeal. Since the application was already filed, the Tribunal found no purpose in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal noted that registration under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, is not a mandatory requirement for claiming deduction under Section 80P. The issue of interest income from investments was restored to the AO for fresh consideration in light of conflicting High Court judgments.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not sufficiently verified the nature of the expenditure. It noted that some agreements involved the sale of memorabilia where a percentage of sale proceeds were paid, which would not be capital expenditure. However, for other endorsement and agency agreements, more details were needed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeal. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would withdraw the appeals. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose as the assessee would withdraw it. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would withdraw the appeals. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed documentary evidence to discharge the burden under Section 68. However, in the interest of justice, it granted one more opportunity to the assessee to establish the source, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the cash credits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's request. Liberty was granted to the assessees to seek recall of the order if their applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act were not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and would withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission that they had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to the assessees to seek recall of the order if their settlement forms were not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and would withdraw the appeals in due course. Since no purpose would be served by keeping the appeals pending, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the date of allotment, when the full consideration was paid, should be considered as the date of acquisition for calculating cost inflation, not the date of possession certificate. The claim for cost of improvement was denied due to lack of evidence of a building.
The assessee's counsel stated that they did not wish to press the claim for depreciation on bridges. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action under Section 154 was a change of opinion, which is outside its scope. It further held that since the assessee proved business expediency for the cash payments, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was unwarranted.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. This was based on the principle of providing a fair hearing and furnishing relevant details, as established in previous High Court and Tribunal judgments.