Loading ITAT cases…
223 orders · Page 2 of 5
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 Considering the assessees' intention to avail this scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.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 Considering the assessees' intention to avail this scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.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 Considering the assessees' intention to avail this scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE of the Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2016, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, it cannot be applied to the assessment year 2008-09.
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 Considering the assessees' intention to avail this scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.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 Considering the assessees' intention to avail this scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, allowing liberty to the assessees to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. Provisions for revival of proceedings were also clarified.
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 Considering the assessees' intention to avail this scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.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 Considering the assessees' intention to avail this scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.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.
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.
The tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, allowing liberty to the assessees to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. Provisions for revival of proceedings were also clarified.
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 decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, allowing liberty to the assessees to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. Provisions for revival of proceedings were also clarified.
The tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, allowing liberty to the assessees to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. Provisions for revival of proceedings were also clarified.
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 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 dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing liberty to 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 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 neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) had properly adjudicated the jurisdictional issues of reassessment notice validity and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessment and appellate orders were set aside.
The Tribunal permitted the Assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Assessees were also informed that they could approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred regarding the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to restore the appeals if their application under the scheme was rejected.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to restore the appeals if their application under the scheme was rejected.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to restore the appeals if their application under the scheme was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in examining the application of income at the stage of granting registration. The focus should be on whether the objects are charitable and the application is in order, not on potential future application of income.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, following a similar High Court decision. Liberty was granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if their application under the scheme is rejected.
The Tribunal permitted the Assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Assessees were also informed that they could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred during the settlement process.
The Tribunal held that the estimation of income at 8% of gross receipts by the AO was without any reasonable basis. It directed the AO to estimate the income based on the average rate of gross receipts from the earlier three years, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
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 arose from the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the Assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Assessees were also informed that they could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred during the settlement process.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption)'s order was ex-parte and lacked discussion on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. It was clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred regarding the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT. The appeals were dismissed as not pressed due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that advances made to another charitable trust with similar objects and to a company for normal business activities did not constitute a violation of Section 13(1)(c). Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was incorrect.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT. The appeals were dismissed as not pressed due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT. The appeals were dismissed as not pressed due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT. The appeals were dismissed as not pressed due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT. The appeals were dismissed as not pressed due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT. The appeals were dismissed as not pressed due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT. The appeals were dismissed as not pressed due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. Following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, it was held that if employees' contributions to EPF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested, noting that it was open for the assessee to approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred regarding the scheme settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. It was clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred regarding the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the Revenue's appeal to be withdrawn by the assessee. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
The Tribunal held that advances made to another charitable trust with similar objects and to a company for normal business activities did not constitute a violation of Section 13(1)(c). Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was incorrect.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested, noting that it was open to the assessee to approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the scheme's settlement.