Loading ITAT cases…
107 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not pressed/maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not pressed/maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding it neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The assessee's representative had also requested remittance back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the VSVS scheme and the Department had issued Form 3. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied for withdrawal of appeals under the scheme and the Department had issued Form 3. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not pressed/not maintainable, following CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not pressed/maintainable, following CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was also informed that they could approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred during the settlement process.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was settled under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee retains the right to approach the tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow miscellaneous business expenses after verification, following the principle that such expenses are incurred even before business commencement. The issue of travel expenses was left to be decided as per the assessee's willingness to abide by previous ITAT directions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form 3. Both parties agreed to the dismissal of the appeal.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the issuance of Form 3 by the department, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's application for withdrawal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form 3 by the Department, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted both the assessee and the Revenue to withdraw their respective appeals. It was noted that the assessee could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
The Tribunal permitted both the assessee and the Revenue to withdraw their respective appeals. It was clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in e-filing, stating that the assessee had reasonable cause. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
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's settlement.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has filed an application under the VSVS scheme and the Department has issued Form 3. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that REC receipts are capital in nature, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s view that belated PF & ESI contributions, if paid before the due date of filing the return, are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that interest on loans for specific purposes and investments yielding taxable income should be excluded from disallowance calculations under Section 14A. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for recomputation.
The Tribunal held that the payments were not loans or advances hit by Section 2(22)(e) as they were part of genuine business transactions. It also ruled that the cost of land could not be capitalized as it was never purchased by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the payments were not loans or advances hit by Section 2(22)(e) as they were part of genuine business transactions. It also ruled that the cost of land could not be capitalized as it was never purchased by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the payments were not loans or advances hit by Section 2(22)(e) as they were part of genuine business transactions. It also ruled that the cost of land could not be capitalized as it was never purchased by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the capital subsidy received for setting up a new industry in backward areas is a capital receipt and not part of the cost of the asset. Therefore, it should not be reduced from the cost of plant and machinery for depreciation purposes.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of commission, finding it to be a reasonable business expense. For the capital gains issue, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the loss incurred on foreign currency fluctuations would increase the cost of the project and that this enhanced cost is eligible for depreciation. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow capitalization of the loss and claim depreciation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the loan was genuine and supported by evidence, the commission expenses had a business nexus, and the miscellaneous expenses were disallowed arbitrarily by the AO without proper findings.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on the construction of a building on leasehold land, where the assessee does not acquire ownership of the land but constructs for business advantage and saves rent, is revenue expenditure. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that interest on loans for specific purposes and investments yielding taxable income should be excluded from disallowance calculations under Section 14A. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for recomputation.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on the construction of a building on leasehold land, where the assessee does not acquire ownership of the land but constructs for business advantage and saves rent, is revenue expenditure. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the date of allotment of the flat should be considered as the date of acquisition for computing capital gains tax. This decision followed the precedents set by the Supreme Court and the Jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the 'mixed funds theory' and the principle that if interest-free funds are sufficient, advances are presumed to be out of such funds. Therefore, no disallowance of proportionate interest was warranted.
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 again if any injustice arises from the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view on a debatable issue regarding the classification of movable assets. Therefore, the Principal CIT erred in revising the assessment order as it was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of commission, finding it to be a reasonable business expense. For the capital gains issue, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of commission, finding it to be a reasonable business expense. For the capital gains issue, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of commission, finding it to be a reasonable business expense. For the capital gains issue, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to avoid double taxation.
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 appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under 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 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 noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Department had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that merely claiming an expenditure which is not accepted by the revenue does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro-products Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found no concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the settlement application was rejected.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals 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 during the settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals 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 during the settlement process.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on an estimated basis. The Assessing Officer failed to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars, making the section inapplicable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals 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 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 was also informed that they could approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred during the settlement.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department has issued Form 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.