Loading ITAT cases…
289 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would withdraw the appeals after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the issues in the appeal were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek recall if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement is not finalized.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeal in due course. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would withdraw the appeals after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to apply for recall if necessary.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would withdraw the appeals after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would withdraw the appeals after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act on the entire built-up area received from the builder as per the JDA. Consequently, other issues raised in the appeal became academic.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be filing applications to withdraw these appeals in due course. Therefore, it was deemed purposeless to keep the appeals pending.
The Tribunal proposed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee agreed to this proposal.
The Tribunal held that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of three comparable companies (Acropetal Technologies Ltd., E-Info Chips Ltd., and Persistent Systems & Solutions Ltd.) and the inclusion of one comparable company (CG Vak Software & Exports Ltd.). The issue of ALP re-computation was restored to the AO/TPO.
The Tribunal held that the interest disallowance on ECB loans was not justified as the funds were used for continuation/expansion of existing business, not extension. It also directed the AO to re-compute Section 10A deduction considering other disallowances.
The Tribunal proposed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee agreed to this proposal.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee would be filing applications to withdraw them in due course. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal held that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and submitting the necessary forms.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, even if mandatory, should not lead to a double disallowance. Payments qualifying for Section 80G deduction, even if part of CSR, should be allowed at the 'Total Taxable Income' stage.
The Tribunal held that the matter needed further examination by the Assessing Officer regarding the utilization of sale proceeds within the stipulated three-year period for construction of the residential property.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in rejecting the section 54B claim solely on the basis of a missing revised return, as appellate authorities can consider new claims. The matter of section 54F deduction was also remitted for proper examination.
The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal held that working capital adjustment is crucial for determining ALP under TNMM and directed its allowance. It also ruled that communication charges should be excluded from both export and total turnover, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies were not functionally similar and restored one company to the AO/TPO for further verification. The Tribunal also upheld the DRP's direction to exclude foreign currency expenses from both export and total turnover, following the Supreme Court's decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that keeping it pending would serve no purpose. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. The issue was remanded to the AO to ascertain the quantum of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies were not functionally similar and restored one company to the AO/TPO for further verification. The Tribunal also upheld the DRP's direction to exclude foreign currency expenses from both export and total turnover, following the Supreme Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot revalue shares for capital gains computation in the absence of specific provisions like Section 50C for land/buildings. The consideration disclosed in the sale purchase agreement should be adopted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be moving an application to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that working capital adjustment is crucial for determining ALP under TNMM and directed its allowance. It also ruled that communication charges should be excluded from both export and total turnover, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was directed to persuade the AO to file an application for recall of the order if the settlement process failed.
The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was directed to persuade the AO to file an application for recall of the order if the settlement process failed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the registration application. The additions under Section 69 were under appeal, and the survey findings did not justify refusal. The Tribunal also clarified that Section 12AA(4) is not applicable for granting registration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeal in due course after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot revalue shares for capital gains computation in the absence of specific provisions like Section 50C for land/buildings. The consideration disclosed in the sale purchase agreement should be adopted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable and sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question (prior to July 1, 2016), Form 3CL did not have legal sanctity for quantifying weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB), and the deduction should be allowed as claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(A) was ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present its case.