Loading ITAT cases…
223 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting additions related to certain bank credits and interest income, while confirming additions for salary and a portion of unexplained bank deposits. The Tribunal found that some additions amounted to double taxation or were not adequately substantiated.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessees' decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. It granted liberty to the assessees to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected by the designated authority, with specific conditions for revival.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal held that the indexed cost of acquisition should be calculated from the year the assessee's father acquired the property. The issue of estimating the cost of additional construction was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication. The brokerage claim was disallowed for lack of substantiation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle their disputes. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle their disputes. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessees to restore them if their applications under the scheme were rejected.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the tribunal if any injustice arises from the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Following a precedent set by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This was based on the assessees' stated intention to settle their disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessees to restore them if their applications under the scheme were rejected.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court. Liberty was granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 41(1) were not justified as no prior year allowance or deduction was claimed, and additions under Section 68 were invalid as the credits were from earlier years and explanations were provided. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessees to restore them if their applications under the scheme were rejected.
The Tribunal, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal held that issuing a reassessment notice under section 148 before the expiry of the time limit for issuing a notice under section 143(2) is invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' intent to settle disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessees to restore them if their applications under the scheme were rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessees to restore them if their applications under the scheme were rejected.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was also clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not directly pay rent to the landlord, but reimbursed its share to another entity which allegedly paid the landlord. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was questioned.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without providing sufficient opportunity for hearing and without addressing the grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with sufficient opportunity of being heard and the grounds of appeal were not addressed on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a meaningful opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to provide the assessee a chance to submit details and be heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee and without addressing the grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance with notices from the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). However, to provide a final opportunity, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant one more chance to the assessee to submit complete details.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was also informed that they could approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred during the settlement.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. Provisions for revival of proceedings in case of opting out or misrepresentation were also clarified.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. Provisions for revival of proceedings in case of opting out or misrepresentation were also clarified.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal 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 noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of tax disputes. Following a similar High Court order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore it if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. Provisions for revival of proceedings in case of opting out or misrepresentation were also clarified.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the designated authority issued Form No.5. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, held that royalty payments linked to turnover are revenue in nature. The addition made towards royalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as she 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 deleted the penalty, stating that once the quantum addition is deleted, the penalty levied on that basis will not survive. The lower authorities' orders were set aside.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was given liberty to approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred during the settlement.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's intention to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court in an identical case, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to the assessee's liberty to have the appeals recalled if they do not succeed in availing the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed necessary forms for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and was awaiting further steps. Following a similar High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding no wilful negligence on the part of the assessee. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' provides a mechanism for settling direct tax disputes. Considering the assessees' intention to avail this scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding no wilful negligence on the part of the assessee. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' provides a mechanism for settling direct tax disputes. Considering the assessees' intention to avail this scheme, 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, 2020' provides a mechanism for settling direct tax disputes. Considering the assessees' intention to avail this scheme, 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, 2020' provides a mechanism for settling direct tax disputes. Considering the assessees' intention to avail this scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.