Loading ITAT cases…
144 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred regarding the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. 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 assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and were awaiting the necessary documentation. 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 can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal held that applying a different transfer pricing method (CUP) to a specific service fee when the overall transactions were accepted under TNMM was incorrect. However, the Tribunal noted the lack of evidence for services rendered and set aside the issue to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the sale of carbon credits is a capital receipt and not taxable. The Tribunal relied on multiple High Court judgments that supported this view.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred regarding the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided adequate documentary evidence, including agreements, invoices, and bank statements. The Tribunal concluded that the commission payments were made for commercial expediency and were directly linked to the business generated.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not dispute the eligibility for Section 54 exemption but required proof that the acquired asset was assessed in the assessee's hands. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish this evidence.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 8/2014, the entire profit credited to partners' accounts is exempt under Section 10(2A), regardless of the firm's taxable income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that making a provision for bad and doubtful debts equivalent to the amount claimed as deduction in the account books is necessary for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(viia). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the balance 10% of additional depreciation can be claimed in the subsequent year if the asset was used for less than 180 days in the first year. This was based on previous Tribunal orders and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions or to prove that the payments fell under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(e). The request to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer was rejected.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision that such payments made before the return filing due date are deductible.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was deleted by the ITAT and confirmed by the High Court, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) could not survive. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was sustained.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 8/2014, the entire profit credited to partners' accounts is exempt under Section 10(2A), regardless of the firm's taxable income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed solely on the ground of delay. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had subsequently rectified the sale deed to reflect the actual transaction. The original sale deed overstated the consideration to facilitate a loan for her mother, and the rectified deed clarified the actual payment. Therefore, the addition of ₹.25 lakhs as unexplained investment was deleted.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their submission. The assessee retains the right to approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals 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 settlement.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to pursue settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal 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 retains the right to approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.
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 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 permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals 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 settlement.
The Tribunal found no sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the delay was not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to pursue settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application was rejected.
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 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 permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred regarding the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's plea regarding no borrowings for investments and strategic holding of investments in subsidiaries was not adequately examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal, upon considering the submissions and the fact that the assessees opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees retain the right to approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees and the Revenue to withdraw their respective appeals. The decision was based on the parties opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees and the Revenue to withdraw their respective appeals. The decision was based on the parties opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees and the Revenue to withdraw their respective appeals. The decision was based on the parties opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees and the Revenue to withdraw their respective appeals. The decision was based on the parties opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees and the Revenue to withdraw their respective appeals. The decision was based on the parties opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for and settled their disputes under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision was made after the assessees' counsel submitted that the scheme was availed and the Departmental Representative raised no objection.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for and settled their disputes under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision was made after the assessees' counsel submitted that the scheme was availed and the Departmental Representative raised no objection.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted them for adjudication. However, considering the assessee's intention to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for and settled their disputes under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision was made after the assessees' counsel submitted that the scheme was availed and the Departmental Representative raised no objection.
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 settlement.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application under the scheme is rejected.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for and settled their disputes under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal noted that it is open for the assessees to approach them again if any injustice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for and settled their disputes under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision was made after the assessees' counsel submitted that the scheme was availed and the Departmental Representative raised no objection.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for and settled their disputes under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision was made after the assessees' counsel submitted that the scheme was availed and the Departmental Representative raised no objection.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for and settled their disputes under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision was made after the assessees' counsel submitted that the scheme was availed and the Departmental Representative raised no objection.