Loading ITAT cases…
324 orders · Page 1 of 7
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Following a High Court decision in an identical case, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to recall if the scheme is not availed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed necessary forms for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer had not recorded any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, which is a mandatory condition for reopening after four years. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Following a High Court precedent, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to recall if the scheme is not availed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that interest received on delayed compensation for compulsory acquisition of land is akin to compensation itself and is exempt from income tax under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed necessary forms for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed necessary forms for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed necessary forms for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Following a High Court precedent, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to recall if the scheme is not availed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a landowner, had transferred 50% of its land holding and had no interest in the development or cost of construction. The assessee also did not incur any expenses towards developmental activity, thus not fulfilling the conditions for deduction under Section 80IB(10).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed necessary forms for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed declarations under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following a similar decision by the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the payments were made to agencies for referring patients, not directly to doctors. Therefore, the nature of the expenditure was not properly examined.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined all the details regarding the loss on sale of the motorcar and allowed it. Therefore, invoking Section 263 was not justified, and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and, following a High Court precedent, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and, following a High Court precedent, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed necessary forms for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed necessary forms for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by reclassifying interest income and disallowing expenses against it, as the ITAT had only set aside the matter for re-examining disallowances related to agricultural income. The AO should have confined himself to the specific issue remanded.
The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows settlement of tax disputes. Following a similar High Court order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed necessary forms for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed necessary forms for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed necessary forms for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows settlement of tax disputes. Following a similar High Court order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows settlement of tax disputes. Following a similar High Court order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.