Loading ITAT cases…
324 orders · Page 2 of 7
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 Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.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 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 Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.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 Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.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 Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. The Tribunal also clarified the consequences of opting out or misrepresentation under the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. The Tribunal also clarified the consequences of opting out or misrepresentation under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that once the accumulated income's purpose is specified in Form 10 and aligns with the trust's main objects, the Assessing Officer cannot deny the accumulation merely because the purpose appears vague. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents supporting this view.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were revenue in nature, as they were incurred for the purpose of the existing business and did not provide enduring benefits. The accounting treatment in the books was not determinative of the nature of the expenditure for income tax purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the appeal to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to submit necessary evidence and reconciliation to explain the difference between turnover reported in books and Form 26AS.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, following a High Court decision on a similar matter. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the assessee's application under the scheme is rejected.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for unproved expenses was incorrect as it was not based on seized documents. Regarding the Section 40A(3) addition, the Tribunal ruled that investment in a joint venture cannot be brought within its ambit. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision on the revised profit and loss account.
The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred were revenue in nature, even if treated as deferred revenue expenditure in the books, as they did not provide enduring benefits and were incurred for the purpose of the existing business. The AO was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was also given the liberty to approach the Tribunal if any injustice arose from the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee retained the right to approach the Tribunal if any injustice arose from the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was also granted liberty to approach the Tribunal if any injustice arose from the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was allowed to approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred during the settlement process.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the deduction as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of construction completion and investment. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of the exact computation of capital gains and tax paid on the balance amount.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was allowed to approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred during the settlement process.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was allowed to approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred during the settlement process.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to restore them if their applications under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' were rejected. The tribunal also clarified the consequences of opting out or misrepresentation under the scheme.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to restore them if their applications under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' were rejected. The tribunal also clarified the consequences of opting out or misrepresentation under the scheme.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to restore them if their applications under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' were rejected. The tribunal also clarified the consequences of opting out or misrepresentation under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that capital gains tax liability arises in the year the JDA was entered into and possession was handed over, not based on a subsequent allocation agreement. The AO's assessment for AY 2014-15 was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. The Tribunal also clarified the revival of proceedings if the scheme is opted out of or rejected.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the issue of forward contract losses required further examination and remitted it back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. Regarding Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that banking charges should be excluded and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the issue of forward contract losses required further examination and remitted it back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. Regarding Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that banking charges should be excluded and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the issue of proper service of notices under Section 143(2) was the core issue and had not been adequately dealt with by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. The Tribunal also clarified the revival of proceedings if the scheme is opted out of or rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle disputes. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle disputes. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. The Tribunal also clarified the revival of proceedings if the scheme is opted out of or rejected.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. The Tribunal also clarified the revival of proceedings if the scheme is opted out of or rejected.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. The Tribunal also clarified the revival of proceedings if the scheme is opted out of or rejected.
The Tribunal found that the issue of proper service of notices under Section 143(2) was the core issue and had not been adequately dealt with by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the issue of proper service of notices under Section 143(2) was the core issue and had not been adequately dealt with by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the issue of proper service of notices under Section 143(2) was the core issue and had not been adequately dealt with by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the issue of proper service of notices under Section 143(2) was the core issue and had not been adequately dealt with by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle disputes. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle disputes. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal found that the issue of proper service of notices under Section 143(2) was the core issue and had not been adequately dealt with by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.