Loading ITAT cases…
96 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal, considering the lack of complete details and the need for substantial justice, decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(E). The assessee was directed to provide all necessary details for a proper decision.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to non-service of notice under Section 148 and lack of proper application of mind by the AO and the Pr. CIT in granting sanction for reopening. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to claim deductions for housing loan interest and repayment. It also found merit in the claim for deduction on savings bank interest, directing the AO to allow these claims.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed an application which was accepted by the Department. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that when an assessee is engaged in the continuous activity of taking and giving loans, and has earned net positive interest income, establishing a one-to-one nexus for each transaction is not necessary. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which was accepted by the Department. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's activity of taking and giving loans was a continuous business activity yielding net positive interest income, a one-to-one nexus between each loan transaction was not required. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that when an assessee is engaged in the continuous activity of taking and giving loans, and has earned net positive interest income, establishing a one-to-one nexus for each transaction is not necessary. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intent to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intent to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intent to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal of the appeals.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had availed of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) to address the preliminary objection regarding electronic filing and then decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, as evidenced by Form No. 3. Therefore, the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal was accepted.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal due to availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed an application which was accepted by the Department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal based on their participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this prayer.
The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for a prior assessment year was restored to the Assessing Officer to examine the fund position. The Tribunal followed this precedent, directing the AO to re-examine the issue based on the assessee's own funds.
The tribunal noted the assessee's intent to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had taken into account loans and advances from Mahashe Jewellers Pvt Ltd. The CIT(A) had also confirmed the additions mechanically. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide clear findings on whether the restricted disallowance related to interest or administrative expenses. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for fresh decision. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(E) on a specified date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income from a cooperative bank due to the exclusion provided in Section 80P(4). However, the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) was not adjudicated by the lower authorities.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue did not raise any objection.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had taken into account loans and advances from Mahashe Jewellers Pvt Ltd. The CIT(A) had also confirmed the additions mechanically. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, granting the assessee liberty to get it restored if the dispute settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not finalized due to non-payment of taxes or other reasons.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not raise any objection to this request.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee who opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Act.
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 Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received certificates under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, and the Revenue did not object to the appeals being dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received certificates under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, and the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received certificates under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, and the Revenue did not object to the appeals being dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and a certificate had been issued. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received certificates under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, and the Revenue did not object to the appeals being dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the registration under Section 12A cannot be denied merely because the trust was established to comply with CSR obligations, especially when CSR activities are charitable in nature. The aims and objects of the assessee were found to be charitable.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and enhanced by the CIT(A) was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the loan was received through banking channels, payments were also made to the firm, and the firm had filed its income tax return for the relevant assessment year, confirming its identity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received certificates under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, and the Revenue did not object to the appeals being dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly followed the previous ITAT directions and had passed a slip-shod order. The CIT(A) did not adequately explain how transactions were not linked to book entries and failed to dispose of a legal issue raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had availed the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and the Income Tax Department had issued the necessary certificate.