Loading ITAT cases…
125 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for suppressed production and marketing expenditure, finding the assessee's explanations satisfactory. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of finance charges, sustaining the AO's disallowance.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for suppressed production and marketing expenditure, finding the assessee's explanations satisfactory. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of finance charges, sustaining the AO's disallowance.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for suppressed production and marketing expenditure, finding the assessee's explanations satisfactory. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of finance charges, sustaining the AO's disallowance.
The Tribunal, in a recalled order, had previously held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 10A on enhanced income after disallowance under Section 14A. This issue was settled in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to correct the name of the respondent's representative in the cause title of its earlier order. The correction was to replace 'Ms. Anita, JCIT' with 'Mr.G.Srinivasa Rao, PCIT and Ms. R.Anita, Addl.CIT'.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was advised to approach the Tribunal if any injustice arose from the scheme's 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 scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The order also noted that the assessee could approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred regarding the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for suppressed production and marketing expenditure, finding the assessee's explanations satisfactory. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of finance charges, sustaining the AO's disallowance.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that they have obtained Form No. 3 and seek withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the application under the scheme is rejected.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that they have obtained Form No. 3 under the Vivas se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal to be withdrawn as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision was made without objection from the Departmental Representative.
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 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 upheld the deletion of additions for suppressed production and marketing expenditure, finding the assessee's explanations satisfactory. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of finance charges, sustaining the AO's disallowance.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission about obtaining Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal directed the AO to instruct the assessee to cure the defects and then consider the VSVS compliance. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the VSVS application was rejected.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and granted permission to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was given to restore the appeal if the application under the scheme is rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the transactions with necessary evidence, and there was no effect on the profit or loss. Therefore, it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income warranting penalty.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal permitted the Revenue to withdraw its appeal. This was based on the assessee's successful enrollment in the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had filed an application under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and the department had issued Form 3. The stay application was dismissed as infructuous.