Loading ITAT cases…
670 orders · Page 8 of 14
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if Form No. 3 was not issued.
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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a miscellaneous application if Form No. 3 was not issued.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 acknowledged the CBDT circular which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the Revenue's appeal based on the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind independently to determine if a taxable benefit existed and under which provision. The Tribunal also noted that the shares were transferred at the cost incurred by the company, negating a taxable perquisite.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind independently to determine if a taxable benefit existed and under which provision. The Tribunal also noted that the shares were transferred at the cost incurred by the company, negating a taxable perquisite.
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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a miscellaneous application if Form No. 3 was not issued.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 held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind independently to determine if a taxable benefit existed and under which provision. The Tribunal also noted that the shares were transferred at the cost incurred by the company, negating a taxable perquisite.
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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a miscellaneous application if Form No. 3 was not issued.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 deleted the addition of Rs. 10,000/- related to additional payments, finding it to be a covered matter based on previous decisions for sister concerns. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted, following coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the filing of relevant forms. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind independently to determine if a taxable benefit existed and under which provision. The Tribunal also noted that the shares were transferred at the cost incurred by the company, negating a taxable perquisite.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The tribunal noted that the respondent (Income Tax Officer) 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 noted the assessees' request for withdrawal due to opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
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 decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it 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 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 by the Tribunal.
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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed. However, this dismissal is conditional, allowing the assessee to seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved 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 noted the assessees' request for withdrawal due to opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The tribunal noted the assessees' request for withdrawal due to opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal held that a gift of stock-in-trade by a corporate entity to other corporate entities, in the absence of any consideration, does not result in business income in the hands of the donor. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and High Court decisions regarding gifts and family arrangements.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit for appeals, also applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted the request.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on 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 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 accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted this request.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted this request.
The tribunal accepted the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals, noting that they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The tribunal accepted the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals, noting that they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The tribunal accepted the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals, noting that they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The tribunal accepted the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals, noting that they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
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 dispute is not resolved.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A applies to expenditure related to exempt income, even from strategic investments or stock-in-trade. The disallowance should be made by apportioning expenses between taxable and non-taxable income, not solely by applying Rule 8D(2)(iii) on the average value of stock-in-trade.
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 based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the transfer pricing adjustment on interest on receivables, citing a Supreme Court order. However, the ground related to segmental accounts was dismissed as infructuous.