Loading ITAT cases…
187 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(iib) is not applicable as the payment was not an exclusive levy or appropriation from a State Government undertaking. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that only investments yielding dividend income should be considered for calculating average investments.
The assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted. Consequently, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee were withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) correctly directed the exclusion of 90% of net interest income and certain miscellaneous incomes from the business profits for Section 80HHC computation. However, the Tribunal also upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to allow R&D expenditure and the assessee's accounting method for packing materials.
The assessee prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that keeping them pending would serve no purpose. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if needed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no power to entertain a Section 154 petition to reopen a concluded matter or review its earlier order. The alleged mistakes were not apparent on record and required elaborate reasoning, which is beyond the scope of Section 154.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal allowed the exclusion of three companies (Persistent Systems & Solutions Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., and Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd.) as they were previously held to be not comparable. It also directed the inclusion of Evoke Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and RS Software (India) Ltd. as comparable companies. The issue regarding CG Vak Software & Export Ltd. was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that keeping it pending would serve no purpose.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 noted that the issues contested in the appeal were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall if circumstances warranted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no power to entertain a Section 154 petition to reopen a concluded matter or review its earlier order. The alleged mistakes were not apparent on record and required elaborate reasoning, which is beyond the scope of Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for claiming the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) based on prior approvals and judicial precedents. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the quantum addition was also deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeals after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that a reference to the DVO was not necessary was improper. When the assessee challenged the valuation, it was the AO's duty to refer the matter to the DVO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to produce necessary documents.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the issues contested in the appeal were settled under the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that keeping them pending would serve no purpose. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no power to entertain a Section 154 petition to reopen a concluded matter or review its earlier order. The alleged mistakes were not apparent on record and required elaborate reasoning, which is beyond the scope of Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no power to entertain a Section 154 petition to reopen a concluded matter or review its earlier order. The alleged mistakes were not apparent on record and required elaborate reasoning, which is beyond the scope of Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no power to entertain a Section 154 petition to reopen a concluded matter or review its earlier order. The alleged mistakes were not apparent on record and required elaborate reasoning, which is beyond the scope of Section 154.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeals after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause due to the circumstances explained by the assessee. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside due to the assessee's non-appearance owing to reasonable cause.
The Tribunal noted that the issues contested in the appeal have been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and equity, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to represent the case before the Assessing Officer. The entire issue was restored to the files of the AO.
The Tribunal agreed with the Bangalore Benches' practice of dismissing appeals as withdrawn when the assessee opts for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if Form 3 was not received.
The Tribunal held that the warranty provision claimed could not be allowed as a deduction in the current assessment year as it pertained to earlier years and was allowed on an actual basis. The claim for allowance in a subsequent year due to reversal was not examinable in the present appeal.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69 for Rs. 17,10,000 was not justified as the investment was made in an earlier assessment year. The addition of Rs. 5,00,000 was deleted as it was explained by the repayment of advance. However, the addition of Rs. 50,000 as unexplained cash credit was confirmed.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the refundable security deposit did not constitute consideration for the transfer of immovable property and was not liable for TDS under section 194-IA. Consequently, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default.
The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, following the practice of the Bangalore Benches in such cases. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if Form 3 was not received or for any other reason under the scheme.
The Tribunal agreed with the Bangalore Benches' practice of dismissing appeals as withdrawn when the assessee opts for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if Form 3 was not received.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT under section 263 was barred by limitation as it was dispatched to the assessee after the expiry of the prescribed period. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision, the Tribunal annulled the order.
The Tribunal noted that the issues in the appeal had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.