Loading ITAT cases…
670 orders · Page 6 of 14
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 rejected the adjournment application and consigned the appeals to records, treating them as dismissed. However, this dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued prior to the assessee filing its return in response to the notice under section 148. This renders the assessment order without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment request and treated the appeal as withdrawn and dismissed, as the assessee was in the process of filing forms under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to file a miscellaneous application for recall if Form No. 3 was not granted.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 Consequently, the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer was treated as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 this request.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 rejected the adjournment application and consigned the appeal to records, treating it as dismissed. However, the dismissal is 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.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs and stated it applies to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it 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 acknowledged that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to the records.
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 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, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the settlement under the scheme was not finalized.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeals to records and treat them as dismissed. This 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 appeals.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeals to records and treat them as dismissed. This 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 appeals.
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 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 held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as it was based on suspicion and a desire for further investigation rather than a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
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 appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, having opted to settle the tax dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted this request.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, subject to the condition that if Form No. 3 is not issued by the Revenue, the assessee can move an application for recalling the order.
The assessee submitted that they had availed the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and requested the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal accepted this submission.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the issuance of Form No.3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that the AO had ignored a prior reassessment order where the same cash credit was accepted. Reopening the case on the same grounds and making the same additions was deemed impermissible, following the Delhi High Court's judgment in Pr. CIT vs. Aditya Khanna.
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 disposed of the appeal of the assessee, subject to the issuance of Form No. 3 in favour of the assessee. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act and principles of natural justice by passing an ex parte order without deciding the appeal on merits. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to a caveat.
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 held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act and principles of natural justice by passing an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. The impugned order was set aside.
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 rejected the adjournment application and consigned the appeals to records, treating them as dismissed. However, this dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment request as the assessee was considering settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.