Loading ITAT cases…
670 orders · Page 9 of 14
The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed. This dismissal is 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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
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 held that since the assessee had succeeded in the quantum appeal before the Tribunal, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) does not survive. The penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal on merits after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to comply with the notices.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer without proper jurisdiction and was time-barred. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed void ab initio.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 the AO's disposal of objections in the assessment order, without a separate order, violated principles of natural justice. The discrepancy between the reasons recorded for reopening and the final addition also indicated a lack of application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted as the payee had offered the income and filed returns, and the short-term capital loss was allowed as the assessee followed the correct method for depreciable assets.
The Tribunal considered the Revenue's submission that the appeal should be treated as withdrawn if the assessee is opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment application and treated the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee being granted Form No. 3 under the scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on account of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for royalty payments, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s reasoning. Similarly, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding disallowance of royalty expenses and excess depreciation, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order on merit even in cases of non-representation. Since the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without adjudication on merit, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circulars which set monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal of the assessee. This disposal is conditional upon the Department issuing Form No. 3 in favor of the assessee under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, 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 dismissed the assessee's appeal. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal again if they could not avail the benefits of the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme or if their application was rejected.
The Tribunal, considering the agreement of both parties and CBDT instructions regarding low tax effect appeals, dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Assessee also stated they were not pressing their cross-objection.
The Tribunal held that orders passed by an officer who has become functus officio are nullities in law and suffer from a jurisdictional defect. Such defects are not curable and render the orders unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that orders passed by an officer who has become functus officio are nullities in law and suffer from a jurisdictional defect. Such defects are not curable and render the orders unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The Revenue's representative could not provide any exceptions to this rule.
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 found that the assessee had provided confirmations for sundry creditors, which the CIT overlooked. Regarding Section 50C, the Tribunal held it was not applicable as the transfer occurred before the relevant amendment and no value was adopted or assessed by authorities. Therefore, the CIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that orders passed by an officer who has become functus officio are nullities in law and suffer from a jurisdictional defect. Such defects are not curable and render the orders unsustainable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, subject to the issuance of Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had already deleted the Rs. 1.56 crore addition for AY 2009-10. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to give effect to this deletion and allow the carry forward of losses to subsequent assessment years.
The Tribunal held that orders passed by an officer who has become functus officio are nullities in law and suffer from a jurisdictional defect. Such defects are not curable and render the orders unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had already deleted the Rs. 1.56 crore addition for AY 2009-10. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the benefit of carried forward losses to subsequent assessment years, as the basis for disallowance in those years was removed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was no longer aggrieved due to the deletion of additions by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal recalled the earlier dismissal order due to sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The appeal was then dismissed as withdrawn upon the assessee's request to settle the dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee intended to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to approach the Tribunal if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot enhance the assessment on matters that do not arise out of the assessment proceedings. Since the CIT(A) enhanced the income on an issue not considered by the AO, the order was deemed illegal and invalid.
The Tribunal held that orders passed by an officer who has become functus officio are nullities in law and suffer from a jurisdictional defect. Such defects are not curable and render the orders unsustainable.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the Revenue's appeal as non-maintainable because the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs stipulated by the CBDT circular. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit.
The Tribunal restored both the issues of jewellery and cash additions back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce necessary evidence to support her claims regarding the acquisition of jewellery and cash.
The Tribunal held that orders passed by an officer who has become functus officio are nullities in law and suffer from a jurisdictional defect. Such defects are not curable and render the orders unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record clear satisfaction as to whether the case involved furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. It is a settled law that penalty cannot be imposed for breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) when proceedings are initiated for another.
The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had already deleted the Rs. 1.56 crore addition for AY 2009-10. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the benefit of carried forward losses to subsequent assessment years, as the basis for disallowance in those years was removed.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Joint Investment Private Limited, restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of the exempt income earned by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that orders passed by an officer who has become functus officio due to compulsory retirement are nullities in law and suffer from a jurisdictional defect. Such defects are not curable.
The Tribunal held that the royalty payment was based on production and did not confer any enduring benefit on the assessee. Therefore, it should be treated as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that orders passed by an officer who has become functus officio due to compulsory retirement are nullities in law and suffer from a jurisdictional defect. Such defects are not curable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.