Loading ITAT cases…
190 orders · Page 3 of 4
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.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission that they had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.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 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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had already initiated proceedings under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.
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.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission. The assessees were granted liberty to seek recall of the order if their applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act were not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission that they had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that no purpose would be served by keeping it pending since the assessee had already initiated settlement proceedings. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of penalty, stating that since the quantum additions were already deleted by a prior ITAT order, the penalty was not warranted. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce evidence to support the claim that the expenses related to the current assessment year, especially given the mercantile system of accounting followed. The contradictions in the income declarations further weakened the assessee's case.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw its appeal as the dispute was resolved through the MAP. Consequently, the revenue's appeal, also concerning the same transaction, was dismissed as the dispute was settled.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, finding that the assessment order was passed against a non-existent entity. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the Tribunal held that such an assessment is void ab initio and therefore unsustainable.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw its appeal as the dispute was resolved through the MAP. Consequently, the revenue's appeal, also concerning the same transaction, was dismissed as the dispute was settled.
The Tribunal held that while the AO cannot entertain such a claim without a revised return, the appellate authorities have the power to consider it. The assessee is entitled to the forex loss relevant to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would withdraw the appeal in due course. Since the necessary application was already filed, the Tribunal found no purpose in keeping the appeal pending and dismissed it as withdrawn.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without considering the assessee's evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a detailed order on merits, ensuring proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had opted for the VSVS 2020 scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that no purpose would be served by keeping it pending given the assessee's decision to join the VSVS scheme. Liberty was granted to seek recall if the assessee opts out of the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the AO is legally bound to consider the assessee's claim for set-off of unabsorbed losses/depreciation against total income, even if not claimed in the original return. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO is legally bound to consider the assessee's claim for set-off of unabsorbed losses/depreciation against total income, even if not claimed in the original return. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO is legally bound to consider the assessee's claim for set-off of unabsorbed losses/depreciation against total income, even if not claimed in the original return. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose as the assessee is moving to withdraw it. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO is legally bound to consider the assessee's claim for set-off of unabsorbed losses/depreciation against total income, even if not claimed in the original return. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation as the company is in existence and earning income from other sources like F&O operations. The disallowance of depreciation on the car, while allowing maintenance expenditure, was considered incorrect.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of affidavits from lessors, supporting the assessee's claim of leasing land for agricultural operations. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo examination of this evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271C was not sustainable, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts. The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the non-deduction of tax, and the assessee's actions were not wanton but based on a bona fide belief.
The Tribunal held that the amount received from the tenant was a capital receipt as it was directly and intimately linked with the restoration of the capital asset (the building) after the tenant vacated. Therefore, it was not taxable as revenue income.
The Tribunal noted that no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending given the assessee's decision to join the VSVS scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeals without hearing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after condoning the delay, subject to a cost.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were valid as the escapement of income was due to the assessee's own declaration and subsequent failure to include it in the return. However, the addition of Rs. 1 Crore was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the time limit for investment under Section 54EC is six months from the date of transfer, and the Rs. 50 lac limit per financial year was a result of ambiguity. This ambiguity was clarified by the legislature with effect from April 1, 2015, for assessment year 2015-16 onwards.
The Tribunal held that turnover is a relevant criterion for selecting comparable companies in transfer pricing cases and upheld the exclusion of companies with significantly higher turnover than the assessee. The Tribunal also remanded an issue regarding the deductibility of cess as business expenditure to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS 2020 scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending given the assessee's decision to join the VSVS scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to move for recall if the assessee opts out of the scheme.
The Tribunal held that retention bonus is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) and is subject to Section 43B. The disallowance was restricted to the amount not paid before the due date for filing the return of income, upholding the CIT(A)'s order on this issue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeals without hearing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after condoning the delay, subject to a cost.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, citing reasonable cause. It held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without hearing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued to a wrong address without proper verification by the AO, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the reassessment order and consequential penalty orders were quashed.
The ITAT held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Revenue cannot file appeals before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeal in due course as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that keeping it pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had already initiated the Vivad Se Vishwas process. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that keeping it pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had already initiated the settlement process. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies in the transfer pricing analysis and upheld the DRP's decision regarding the exclusion of foreign currency expenses from both export and total turnover for Section 10A deduction. The issue of TDS credit was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that keeping it pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had already initiated the settlement process. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose as the assessee is required to withdraw it. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.