Loading ITAT cases…
670 orders · Page 5 of 14
The Tribunal held that payments made to Mrs. Malvika Rai were not in violation of Section 13(1)(c) as they were for services rendered and commensurate with her qualifications. The ad-hoc disallowance of 50% of repairs and car maintenance expenses was also directed to be deleted.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) was the most appropriate method for benchmarking Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenditure for import of finished goods for resale. The Brightline Test was rejected as it lacks statutory mandate. Outward freight in India was not to be considered for adjustment.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) was the most appropriate method for benchmarking Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenditure. It also ruled that the Brightline Test (BLT) lacks statutory mandate for benchmarking AMP expenses.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition corresponding to the penalty no longer subsisted, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) was liable to be affirmed. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal against the penalty deletion was allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The tribunal noted that the respondent (Revenue) had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove that the bogus purchases were carried forward in the closing stock. However, it allowed the addition of only the gross profit embedded in the bogus purchases, considering the assessee's GP ratio.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Mrs. Malvika Rai were not in violation of Section 13(1)(c) as they were for services rendered and commensurate with her qualifications. The ad-hoc disallowance of 50% of repairs and car maintenance expenses was also directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Mrs. Malvika Rai were not in violation of Section 13(1)(c) as they were for services rendered and commensurate with her qualifications. The ad-hoc disallowance of 50% of repairs and car maintenance expenses was also directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Mrs. Malvika Rai were not in violation of Section 13(1)(c) as they were for services rendered and commensurate with her qualifications. The ad-hoc disallowance of 50% of repairs and car maintenance expenses was also directed to be deleted.
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 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 payments made to Mrs. Malvika Rai were not in violation of Section 13(1)(c) as they were for services rendered and commensurate with her qualifications. The ad-hoc disallowance of 50% of repairs and car maintenance expenses was also directed to be deleted.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall if the settlement certificate was not issued.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted this request.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex parte order without deciding the appeal on merits and without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act. The impugned order was set aside.
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 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 settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of 10% of operating expenses was not justified without pointing out defects in bills and vouchers. It also noted that in a subsequent year, the Assessing Officer accepted the operating expenses claim after verification.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's 12A registration had been restored by a previous Tribunal order. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue of exemption and the infrastructure reserve fund to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
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 in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal found that the sole issue was the verification of whether all payments were made before the return filing date. It restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh verification, allowing both parties an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form No. 3. Based on the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal ordered that the appeal be consigned to record and treated 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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act by passing an ex parte order without deciding the issues on merits. Principles of natural justice require a sufficient opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by proving the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the share applicants. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order.
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)'s order denied the assessee an opportunity of being heard and the appeal was not decided on merits. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.