Loading ITAT cases…
938 orders · Page 10 of 19
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn due to the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue's appeal was also dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of depreciation on rental assets.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which applies to pending appeals, makes the Revenue's appeal non-maintainable due to the tax effect being below Rs. 50 lakhs.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had received Form No. 3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was deemed to be withdrawn as per Section 4(2) of the Act.
The tribunal noted that both the assessee and the revenue agreed to treat the appeals as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous.
The tribunal noted that both the assessee and the revenue agreed to treat the appeals as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn and infructuous.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue's appeal was also dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of depreciation on rental assets, following previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the AO failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the expenses were excessive or unreasonable, or not for business purposes. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the AO failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the expenses were excessive or unreasonable, or not for business purposes. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to approach the Tribunal if Form 3 was not issued.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. However, for issues of short deduction of TDS, the Tribunal followed the Calcutta High Court ruling in S.K. Tekriwal, holding that no disallowance is warranted.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. However, for issues of short deduction of TDS, the Tribunal followed the Calcutta High Court ruling in S.K. Tekriwal, holding that no disallowance is warranted.
The Tribunal held that Piramal Healthcare Ltd. and WAPCOS Ltd. were not comparable companies for ALP determination due to functional dissimilarity and government ownership, respectively. Consequently, the adjustment related to these comparables was excluded.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn due to the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue's appeal was also dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of depreciation on rental assets.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for appeals before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular applies to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that corporate membership fees paid to a club are revenue expenditure. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Samtel Colour Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that the membership fee paid by the company is an allowable expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the AO failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the expenses were excessive or unreasonable, or not for business purposes. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had exercised the option to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not justified because the Delhi High Court had previously ordered the reversal of sweat equity share entries. Therefore, the basis for taxing the value of these shares as income was nullified.
The Tribunal held that Piramal Healthcare Ltd. and WAPCOS Ltd. were not comparable companies for ALP determination due to functional dissimilarity and government ownership, respectively. Consequently, the adjustment related to these comparables was excluded.
The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed. This is 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 noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 50 Lacs and that this circular was applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. A Form No. 3 was issued in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to approach the Tribunal if Form 3 was not issued.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 was issued. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and not dismissed it solely for non-prosecution. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting one last opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merit and not dismissed it solely for non-prosecution. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to present its case.