Loading ITAT cases…
670 orders · Page 11 of 14
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal, considering it settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, it allowed the assessee to seek reinstitution of the appeal if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the inclusion of certain comparable companies in the transfer pricing analysis for the trading segment. It also remanded issues related to working capital adjustments and proportionate adjustments back to the TPO for re-computation.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the DCF method and conducting an independent valuation using the Net Assets Value (NAV) method. The Tribunal also found that the lower authorities had not properly adjudicated the contentions raised by the assessee regarding the valuation.
The tribunal noted the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and treated the appeal as withdrawn. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to seek recall if the settlement process was not completed.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 held that the amended provisions of Section 51 and Section 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, which made forfeited advances taxable, were applicable only from April 1, 2015. For the assessment year 2013-14, such forfeited amounts were to be deducted from the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains, not taxed as income.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to a caveat.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT cannot assume an error in the AO's order when the AO has duly verified the information and found no basis for addition. The Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate how the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance for unverifiable purchases, noting that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Regarding the loans, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s view of double addition and restored the AO's addition, stating the assessee failed to discharge its initial burden under Section 68.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
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 allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, with liberty to approach the Tribunal if the dispute wasn't settled.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, with liberty to approach the Tribunal if the dispute wasn't settled.
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 held that expatriate costs for after-sales services and warranty are embedded in the sales price and should be considered when computing the gross profit margin under the Resale Price Method. Therefore, the AO and CIT(A)'s approach was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated 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 in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directed the exclusion of routine selling and distribution expenses from AMP expenses and suggested using the cost-plus method for benchmarking. The Tribunal upheld the DRP's directions, finding no infirmity in its rejection of the bright-line test.
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 opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the assessee.
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 assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the notice under Section 148 was duly served. It held that the assessee failed to rebut the presumption of service with cogent evidence and that the onus was on the assessee to prove non-service.
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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer had not rejected the assessee's books of accounts or sales, and had failed to properly appreciate the evidence supporting the purchases and deposits.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw 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 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 treated the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the assessee to seek recall if Form No. 3 was not issued.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit should be granted in the year the income is assessable, even if reflected in a different assessment year's Form 26AS due to deductor error. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify and grant proportionate credit.
The Tribunal held that the AO was bound by CBDT instructions to confine the assessment to the specific issue for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny. Therefore, the PCIT was not justified in holding the assessment order erroneous for not examining aspects beyond the limited scrutiny scope.
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 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 for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.