Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 3 of 9
The Tribunal held that the issue of lean gas production at customer terminals had been decided in favor of the assessee by a coordinate bench. Regarding investment allowance, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the claim after verification of reserves.
The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the GTD expenses were incurred for the advancement of the Indian IT industry as a whole, aligning with the assessee's objectives. Past and subsequent years' treatment by the revenue also supported the allowability of such expenses.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issue of lean gas production at customer terminals had been decided in favor of the assessee by a coordinate bench. Regarding investment allowance, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the claim after verification of reserves.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The appeals were consequently consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeals to records and treat them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeals to records and treat them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Forms 1 and 2 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and was awaiting Form 3. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide a categorical finding on the merits of the case and had passed an ex-parte order without proper hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. It found that a significant portion of the cash deposits were explained by prior cash withdrawals from the same bank account, and directed the AO to delete an addition of Rs. 340,000 out of the Rs. 514,000 sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an adequate opportunity of hearing and did not give categorical findings on merit. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and was not a capital expenditure. It noted that the forfeited amount had already been taxed as revenue in a prior year, and refunding it upon re-booking of real estate should be treated as a revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT at Rs. 50 Lakhs. The Revenue's counsel agreed with this position.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal considered the assessee's application and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application for recall if not issued Form No. 3 under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without giving proper opportunity of hearing and without deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing and without deciding the case on merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a proper hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission that they were opting for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for recall of the order if the necessary forms under the scheme were not issued.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 was defective as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) the penalty proceedings were initiated for. The assessment order also lacked clarity on this aspect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing a proper opportunity of hearing and without deciding the case on merit. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission that they were opting for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for recall if the necessary forms under the scheme were not issued.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee was directed to appear and present their case, failing which the CIT(A) could pass an order as per law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and did not decide the case on merit. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that TCS E-Serve International and TCS E-Serve Ltd. were not suitable comparables due to brand value, scale of operations, and lack of segmental information. It also directed the TPO to reconsider R System International Ltd. as a comparable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) issued only one notice of hearing and passed an ex parte order. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) issued only one notice of hearing and passed an ex parte order. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without giving proper opportunity of hearing and without deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a miscellaneous application for recall if the necessary form under the scheme was not issued.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and did not decide the case on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of issuing a notice for Rs. 75 lakhs and making an addition of Rs. 15 lakhs, without proper application of mind and verification, rendered the assessment bad in law. Following precedent, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits and had dismissed it solely on the ground of non-prosecution. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merit after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and did not decide the case on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, the dismissal was subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing a proper opportunity of hearing and without deciding the case on merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed a condonation application before the CIT(A) and the reason for the delay was not explained. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide on the condonation of delay and the appeal on merit.