Loading ITAT cases…
670 orders · Page 3 of 14
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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted this request.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted this request.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted this request.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted this request.
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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted this request.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction, noting that the issue was decided in favour of the assessee in prior assessment years by the Tribunal and the High Court.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the payment to HUDA was a charge for securing permission to lease out parts of the hospital premises for essential services like a food court and pharmacy. This expenditure was directly related to the day-to-day running of the hospital business and did not enhance the value of the property as the assessee was not the owner.
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 consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek 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 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.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, with a caveat for reinstitution if the settlement fails.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed previous orders of the Tribunal and High Court which had already decided similar issues for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal found no illegality or irregularity in the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was consequently 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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee opted to settle the tax disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee opted to settle the appeals under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Both the assessee and the revenue agreed that the appeals should be treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the closing stock of the previous year must be treated as the opening stock of the current year. It directed the authorities to treat the closing stock of AY 2013-14 as the opening stock for AY 2014-15.
The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recalling of the order if the required form was not issued.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, with a caveat for reinstitution if the scheme settlement fails.
The assessee opted to settle the appeals under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Both the assessee and the revenue agreed that the appeals should be treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 14A, agreeing that it is not applicable when no exempt income is earned. It also upheld the deletion of the trade creditor addition, finding no evidence of irrevocable cessation of liability.
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 held that the case was one of difference of opinion regarding the treatment of expenditure, not concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
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) correctly followed previous orders of the Tribunal and High Court which had already decided similar issues for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal found no illegality or irregularity in the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light 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 assessee opted to settle the appeals under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Both the assessee and the revenue agreed that the appeals should be treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The tribunal decided to consign the appeal to record and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.