Loading ITAT cases…
155 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the assessee's evidence and subsequent judicial precedents linking the fixed deposit funds to the project. The issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that both partners of the unregistered firm had filed returns and offered capital gains, making separate taxation of the firm unnecessary. The issue of Section 54F exemption for investment in the son's name was also not fully examined.
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 Following a High Court precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.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 noted that the assessee intended to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and, following a High Court precedent, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to justify the high face value of preference shares, especially when the company had a negative net worth and its investments were in a defunct company. The transaction was considered a sham to overcome tax provisions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that excess application of income can be carried forward and set off against subsequent years' income. It also held that depreciation on capital assets is allowable even when the asset's cost is treated as application of income.
The Tribunal held that only director's remuneration could be apportioned to agricultural operations, while other Head Office expenses should not be. For the subsequent year, it directed that interest income be treated as business income and Head Office expenses (except director salary) be allowed against it.
The Tribunal held that only director's remuneration could be apportioned to agricultural operations, while other Head Office expenses should not be. For the subsequent year, it directed that interest income be treated as business income and Head Office expenses (except director salary) be allowed against it.
The tribunal held that since the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme', there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that since the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme', there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that since the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme', there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that since the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme', there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that excess application of income can be carried forward and set off against subsequent years' income. It also held that depreciation on capital assets is allowable even when the asset's cost is treated as application of income.
The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of direct tax disputes. Following a High Court precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for settlement of direct tax disputes. Following a High Court precedent, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of direct tax disputes. Following a High Court precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' allows for the settlement of direct tax disputes. Following a High Court precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and the need to decide on merits, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after considering the details to be filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, 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 settle their disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, 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 consequences of opting out or misrepresentation were also clarified.
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 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 consequences of opting out or misrepresentation were also clarified.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, 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 assessee to restore them if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is rejected. The consequences of opting out or misrepresentation were also clarified.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition towards long-term capital gains derived from the transfer of equity shares was not justified as the transactions were through recognized brokers at market rates. However, the addition towards unexplained jewellery was upheld due to the lack of proper explanation and substantiation from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred were revenue in nature and did not provide enduring benefit. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Taparia Tools Ltd., it ruled that the difference in accounting treatment in the books of account cannot deprive the assessee from claiming the entire expenditure as a deduction in the year of incurrence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. Considering the assessees' intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' to settle their disputes, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme application is rejected.