Loading ITAT cases…
100 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal permitted the appeals to be withdrawn as the parties had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision was made after the Designated Authority issued Form No. 3 for settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their submission regarding the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the assessee's specific plea that the transactions fell under Section 43(5)(d). Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had paid taxes under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme for full and final settlement. Consequently, the assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal set aside the appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing him to reconsider the issue in light of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). This proviso allows for relief if the payees have included the income in their returns and paid taxes.
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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore it if the Vivad se Vishwas application is rejected. It also clarified the consequences of opting out or misrepresentation under the scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, agreeing with the lower authorities that the condition of shareholders holding not less than three-fourths in value of the shares in the amalgamating company becoming shareholders of the amalgamated company was not satisfied as of the appointed date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an opportunity to furnish evidence for architect fees and brokerage, and therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer. Regarding sales tax and service tax, the Tribunal found that the authorities erred in disallowing them as expenses, and the matter was set aside to ascertain if the assessee opted for a composite payment scheme without collecting taxes from customers.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide contemporaneous material to justify selling shares at cost price and that the written-off expenditure was not related to the current assessment year. Therefore, the disallowances made by the lower authorities were confirmed.
The Tribunal set aside the appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing him to reconsider the issue in light of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). This proviso allows for relief if the payees have included the income in their returns and paid taxes.
The Tribunal held that since fresh penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer, the original penalty orders and the appeals against them became infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeal. The assessee was also informed that they could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred regarding the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
The Tribunal held that since fresh penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer, the original penalty orders and the appeals against them became infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since fresh penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer, the original penalty orders and the appeals against them became infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since fresh penalty proceedings were initiated based on the ITAT's directions, the original penalty orders and the appeals against them became infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to represent her case before the CIT(A) to meet the ends of natural justice. The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issues on merits after providing a hearing.
The Tribunal held that since fresh penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer, the original penalty orders and the appeals against them became infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since fresh penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer, the original penalty orders and the appeals against them became infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
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 their appeal. The assessee was also informed that they 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. The assessee was also informed that they could approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred regarding the settlement.
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 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 was rejected.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting the assessee's intent 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 crucial expression is 'as per books of accounts' in Explanation 1 Clause (iii) to Section 115JB. It found that the losses incurred by the assessee in earlier years were completely absorbed by subsequent profits, and no brought forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation remained as per the books for the current assessment year.
The Tribunal held that warehousing, logistic, rework, and subscription charges paid to non-residents were business profits not taxable in India, thus disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect. Similarly, professional fees, consultancy charges, and tuition fees paid to non-residents were also found to be outside the scope of Indian taxation, leading to the deletion of disallowances.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT had not considered the assessee's explanation before passing the revision order. Therefore, the PCIT was directed to re-examine the explanation and provide a proper opportunity to the assessee before deciding on the necessity of invoking Section 263.
The Tribunal held that if two views are possible and the AO has taken a plausible view supported by case law, the PCIT cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 263. Compliance with Section 194C(6) alone was sufficient to avoid disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) as per ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of depreciation on the car was made without evidence of personal use and directed its deletion. It upheld the CIT(A)'s restriction of Section 14A disallowance to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to consider the assessee's written submissions before passing the revision order, making it liable to be quashed. The Tribunal also noted that the PCIT's reliance on a case law was not applicable to the facts of the present case.
The Tribunal held that warehousing, logistic, rework, and subscription charges paid to non-residents were business profits not taxable in India, thus disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect. Similarly, professional fees, consultancy charges, and tuition fees paid to non-residents were also found to be outside the scope of Indian taxation, leading to the deletion of disallowances.
The Tribunal held that warehousing, logistic, rework, and subscription charges paid to non-residents were business profits not taxable in India, thus disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect. Similarly, professional fees, consultancy charges, and tuition fees paid to non-residents were also found to be outside the scope of Indian taxation, leading to the deletion of disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the two flats, being adjacent and used as a single residential unit with common amenities, qualify for deduction under Section 54. The reasoning in CIT v. V.R. Karpagam was also applied.
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, holding that while the identity and creditworthiness of subscribers were proven, the genuineness of the transactions for introducing share capital was not sufficiently established.
The Tribunal held that warehousing, logistic, rework, and subscription charges paid to non-residents were business profits not taxable in India, thus disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect. Similarly, professional fees, consultancy charges, and tuition fees paid to non-residents were also found to be outside the scope of Indian taxation, leading to the deletion of disallowances.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that for weighted deduction, approval from the competent authority is necessary, and set aside the issue of expenditure nature to the AO. It directed the AO to restrict ad-hoc disallowance on printing & stationery and sales promotion to 5%. The issue of deferred revenue expenditure was also set aside to the AO for reconsideration with additional evidence.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of addition for hire charges, holding that TDS was not applicable and bills were provided. For external service charges and payments to related parties, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for reconsideration, requiring the assessee to provide necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that deleted entries retrieved from a computer, which were not corroborated by other evidence and were disowned by the assessee, could not be treated as unexplained investments under Section 69. The CIT(A)'s finding of sufficient source for the payments was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C was invalid due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search. It also noted that the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine deponents whose statements were used against them, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that deleted entries retrieved from a computer, which were not corroborated by other evidence and were disowned by the assessee, could not be treated as unexplained investments under Section 69. The CIT(A)'s finding of sufficient source for the payments was upheld.
The Tribunal held that deleted entries retrieved from a computer, which were not corroborated by other evidence and were disowned by the assessee, could not be treated as unexplained investments under Section 69. The CIT(A)'s finding of sufficient source for the payments was upheld.
The Tribunal held that deleted entries retrieved from a computer, which were not corroborated by other evidence and were disowned by the assessee, could not be treated as unexplained investments under Section 69. The CIT(A)'s finding of sufficient source for the payments was upheld.
The Tribunal held that deleted entries retrieved from a computer, which were not corroborated by other evidence and were disowned by the assessee, could not be treated as unexplained investments under Section 69. The CIT(A)'s finding of sufficient source for the payments was upheld.
The Tribunal held that deleted entries retrieved from a computer, which were not corroborated by other evidence and were disowned by the assessee, could not be treated as unexplained investments under Section 69. The CIT(A)'s finding of sufficient source for the payments was upheld.
The Tribunal held that deleted entries retrieved from a computer, which were not corroborated by other evidence and were disowned by the assessee, could not be treated as unexplained investments under Section 69. The CIT(A)'s finding of sufficient source for the payments was upheld.