Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 6 of 9
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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 to withdraw 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal noted that 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 Income Tax Appellate 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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 in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Income Tax Appellate 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 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 by the Tribunal.
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 accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
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 accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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 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 held that the purchase of fixed assets is an international transaction, but an adjustment to income cannot be made solely on the difference between the declared value and the ALP of such a capital transaction. Depreciation on the adjusted value would be the relevant consideration.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, acknowledging that the basis of the assessment order had been quashed by the ITAT and upheld by the High Court. The Tribunal also noted a similar departmental appeal for a different assessment year was dismissed.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee may not have been granted sufficient opportunities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding it on merit. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed. However, this dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal disposed of the departmental appeal in terms of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, subject to the issuance of Form No. 3 in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was proposed for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the penalty was obliterated.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's exclusion of Acropetal Technologies Ltd., Eclerx Services Ltd., Infosys BPO Ltd., and TCS E-Serve Ltd. However, it reversed the DRP's decision regarding Accentia Technologies Ltd. and directed its inclusion. The assessee's cross-objection regarding working capital adjustment was dismissed.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
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 in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that two comparable companies (TCS E Serve Limited and Infosys BPO Ltd.) were not comparable due to significant differences in turnover. It also directed the TPO to reconstruct financial results for R Systems International Ltd. to assess its comparability. The addition on account of interest on overdue receivables was deleted as it amounted to double addition.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn, subject to the Revenue Department issuing Form No. 3 in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that based on the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Aarham Softronics, substantial expansion can reset the 'initial assessment year' for 100% deduction. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for 100% deduction.