Loading ITAT cases…
670 orders · Page 7 of 14
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for re-institution 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.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 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 Act, 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that while the reassessment proceedings and the reference to the Valuation Officer were valid, the method of determining the Fair Market Value (FMV) by the AO and CIT(A) was flawed. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh determination of the FMV, considering specific construction elements.
The Tribunal held that the AO's observation of non-compliance was contrary to the record, as the assessee had submitted a reply explaining non-receipt of a crucial notice. Therefore, the penalty levied was not sustainable.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The CIT(A) should have allowed the assessee to rectify any defects in the appeal papers.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs and that this circular applies to pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable due to the low tax effect.
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 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 accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing all necessary documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The revenue failed to bring any tangible material to rebut the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings are vitiated because the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were supplied to the assessee. The revenue could not provide any evidence to prove the supply of reasons.
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 noted the assessee's decision to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and, with the Revenue's no objection, consigned the appeals to records, treating them as dismissed. However, a caveat was provided for reinstitution if the settlement was not resolved.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for re-institution if the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme resolution fails.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and, with the Revenue's no objection, consigned the appeals to records, treating them as dismissed. However, a caveat was provided for reinstitution if the settlement was not resolved.
The Tribunal dismissed the 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 Revenue did not object 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 held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to the circular.
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 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 by the tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the AO's observation of non-compliance was contrary to the record, as the assessee had submitted a reply explaining non-receipt of a crucial notice. Therefore, the penalty levied was not sustainable.
Since the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the Departmental Appeal was disposed of. The Assessee's Cross Objection became infructuous and was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for re-institution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. 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.
The Tribunal held that the property was sold on December 3, 2012, and investments were made within 6 months from the transfer date, even though across two financial years. Following the Madras High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Coromandel Industries Ltd., the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not justified as they were initiated on the same material as the original assessment, which was quashed on technical grounds. Additions related to alleged unrecorded sales, birthday party expenses, and bank deposits were also decided.
The assessee requested that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission to withdraw the appeals as they were being resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a miscellaneous application if Form No. 3 was not issued.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. However, it was clarified that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee can approach the Tribunal to re-institute the appeal.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to a caveat.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the enhanced monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case was covered by the Delhi High Court's decision declaring the company as bogus. Given the assessee's non-appearance and intention to settle, the appeal was treated as dismissed as withdrawn.