Loading ITAT cases…
155 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
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 regarding the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A) to meet the ends of natural justice. The appellate order was set aside, and the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee retains the right to approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the scheme's settlement.
The tribunal corrected the mistake in the cause title of its previous order to reflect the correct name of the assessee's advocate. The rest of the original order remains unchanged.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is only applicable if there is exempt income. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the disallowances for sundry creditors and repairs and maintenance expenses after the assessee provided additional evidence. For business promotion expenses, the assessee was asked to produce evidence of business promotion activities.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the TDS deduction made by the assessee. The assessee was asked to provide details for verification, and the issue was to be decided afresh after an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the interest disallowance issue and remitted it back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. For the LTCG issue, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine it in light of a High Court judgment regarding Section 50C.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal issues raised by the assessee, particularly concerning the jurisdiction for reopening the assessment under Section 147 and the validity of the rectification order under Section 154. The appellate order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal issues raised by the assessee, particularly concerning the jurisdiction for reopening the assessment under Section 147 and the validity of the rectification order under Section 154. The appellate order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of purchase of mangoes was without material evidence. The yield variation is natural, and the report of the District Collector was not conclusive proof. The entire activity, from cultivation to export of mangoes in their original form, is agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that the payment made for the use of the SUPIMA trademark constituted royalty as per Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was liable for TDS under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that the payment made for the use of the SUPIMA trademark constituted royalty as per Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was liable for TDS under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an interlocutory order disposing of objections to reopening of assessment under Section 147 is not maintainable before the CIT(A) under Section 246A. The assessee has a remedy of appeal only against the final reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an interlocutory order disposing of objections to reopening of assessment under Section 147 is not maintainable before the CIT(A) under Section 246A. The assessee has a remedy of appeal only against the final reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an interlocutory order disposing of objections to reopening of assessment under Section 147 is not maintainable before the CIT(A) under Section 246A. The assessee has a remedy of appeal only against the final reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an interlocutory order disposing of objections to reopening of assessment under Section 147 is not maintainable before the CIT(A) under Section 246A. The assessee has a remedy of appeal only against the final reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an interlocutory order disposing of objections to reopening of assessment under Section 147 is not maintainable before the CIT(A) under Section 246A. The assessee has a remedy of appeal only against the final reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an interlocutory order disposing of objections to reopening of assessment under Section 147 is not maintainable before the CIT(A) under Section 246A. The assessee has a remedy of appeal only against the final reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an interlocutory order disposing of objections to reopening of assessment under Section 147 is not maintainable before the CIT(A) under Section 246A. The assessee has a remedy of appeal only against the final reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an interlocutory order disposing of objections to reopening of assessment under Section 147 is not maintainable before the CIT(A) under Section 246A. The assessee has a remedy of appeal only against the final reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an interlocutory order disposing of objections to reopening of assessment under Section 147 is not maintainable before the CIT(A) under Section 246A. The assessee has a remedy of appeal only against the final reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of purchase of mangoes was without material evidence. The yield variation is natural, and the report of the District Collector was not conclusive proof. The entire activity, from cultivation to export of mangoes in their original form, is agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of purchase of mangoes was without material evidence. The yield variation is natural, and the report of the District Collector was not conclusive proof. The entire activity, from cultivation to export of mangoes in their original form, is agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of purchase of mangoes was without material evidence. The yield variation is natural, and the report of the District Collector was not conclusive proof. The entire activity, from cultivation to export of mangoes in their original form, is agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of purchase of mangoes was without material evidence. The yield variation is natural, and the report of the District Collector was not conclusive proof. The entire activity, from cultivation to export of mangoes in their original form, is agricultural income.
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 their applications under the scheme were rejected.
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 their applications under the scheme were rejected.
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 their applications under the scheme were rejected.
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 their applications under the scheme were rejected.
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 their applications under the scheme were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the taxability of profit from the sale of agricultural land is a question of fact requiring verification of evidence. Since the assessee claimed they could produce necessary evidence if given an opportunity, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that once books of accounts are rejected under Section 145(3), no further additions can be made based on those books, including for cash credits under Section 68 or unexplained expenses under Section 69C. The estimated profit would encompass all necessary expenses.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an interlocutory order passed by the AO disposing of objections to reopening of assessment under Section 147 is not maintainable under Section 246A of the Act. The assessee has a remedy to challenge the reopening and merits in appeal after the final reassessment order is passed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the appellate order without issuing proper notice or calling for details from the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his powers by re-examining the applicability of Section 194C, as this issue had become final in the previous appellate round. The Tribunal also found that Section 194I was not applicable as the assessee hired lorries along with drivers and bore no running costs.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of purchase of mangoes was without material evidence. The yield variation is natural, and the report of the District Collector was not conclusive proof. The entire activity, from cultivation to export of mangoes in their original form, is agricultural income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appellate order was set aside.
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 their applications under the scheme were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the purchase and sale of land, along with the developer's subsequent sale of plots, indicated an intention for real estate development rather than agricultural use. The profit was therefore taxable as business income.
The Tribunal held that the payment made for the use of the SUPIMA trademark constituted royalty as per Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was liable for TDS under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an interlocutory order disposing of objections to reopening of assessment under Section 147 is not maintainable before the CIT(A) under Section 246A. The assessee has a remedy of appeal only against the final reassessment order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowances under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned, citing Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal found this to be in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' intention to settle disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Following a High Court precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea of paucity of time in submitting evidence and the agreement of the revenue, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. The appeal was set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with all supporting evidences.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' intention to settle disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Following a High Court precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.