Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 4 of 9
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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) did not provide sufficient opportunity of hearing and failed to give categorical findings on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after following principles of natural justice.
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 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.
Both parties agreed that the appeals should be treated as withdrawn due to the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals accordingly.
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 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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Infosys Technologies Ltd, Wipro Ltd, and Persistent Systems Ltd from the comparability analysis for software development services. The assessee chose not to press other grounds if these three comparables were excluded.
The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed to treat the appeals as withdrawn due to the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed subject to the settlement of disputes under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Sahara India Life Insurance Corporation Ltd., the penalty was set aside.
The tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and without deciding the case on merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits.
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(Appeals) did not provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and failed to give a categorical finding on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The CIT(A) had previously decided the appeal ex-parte and sustained the penalty.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Act.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide sufficient opportunity of hearing and failed to give categorical findings on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits after providing a proper hearing.
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 accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and failed to give categorical findings on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing a proper opportunity of hearing and without deciding on merits. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and a Form No. 3 was issued. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was treated 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.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were 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 due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The tribunal noted that the Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The tribunal noted that the Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's decision to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
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 Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeal was accordingly consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the sanction for reassessment proceedings was not a supervisory role but a quasi-judicial function that requires proper application of mind. The reassessment proceedings were found to be unsustainable in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were bad in law because the notices issued by the Assessing Officer were vague and ambiguous, failing to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals with the liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for revival if the dispute is not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed with these directions.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as not pressed and not maintainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the ITAT for recall if the circulars were found not applicable.