Loading ITAT cases…
85 orders · Page 2 of 2
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 scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as withdrawn, considering the assessee's application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form 3 by the Department. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the application is rejected.
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 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 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. Some appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, and others as infructuous.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn or infructuous.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn or infructuous.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn or infructuous.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn or infructuous.
The tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the VSVS scheme and the department had issued Form 3. Consequently, the tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, as the settlement under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme was pending. The assessee can approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arises from the scheme's settlement.
The tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the VSVS scheme and the department had issued Form 3. Consequently, the tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals.
The tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the VSVS scheme and the department had issued Form 3. Consequently, the tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd. is not a good comparable due to allegations of fraud and abnormal margins, directing its exclusion. The club membership fee was disallowed as personal expenditure, while interest on delayed service tax payment was allowed as compensatory.
The Tribunal permitted the Revenue to withdraw its appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme for settlement. The assessee/Revenue can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.
The tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the VSVS scheme and the department had issued Form 3. Consequently, the tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals.
The tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their scheme applications were rejected.
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 scheme's settlement.
The tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their scheme applications were rejected.
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 scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal held that neither the assessee nor Mr. Prasanth had satisfactorily explained the impugned credits as required by Section 68. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the exempt income of Rs. 241/-.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were not genuine and were manipulated with the collusion of brokers. The assessees failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions despite opportunities.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were not genuine and were manipulated with the collusion of brokers. The assessees failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions despite opportunities.
The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal as the assessee was not interested in prosecuting it. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were not genuine and were manipulated with the collusion of brokers. The assessees failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions despite opportunities.
The Tribunal found that the AO was inconsistent in his approach and completed the assessment without appreciating the material placed before him. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
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 again if any injustice occurred regarding the scheme settlement.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be not deliberate and substantial issues of law were involved. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were not genuine and were manipulated with the collusion of brokers. The assessees failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions despite opportunities.