Loading ITAT cases…
938 orders · Page 11 of 19
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 Consequently, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.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 Consequently, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.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 held that the CBDT circular, which applies to pending appeals, renders the Revenue's appeal non-maintainable due to the tax effect being below Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwash Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
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 Consequently, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.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 the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the matter being settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's liberty to seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT circular and its subsequent clarification.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can approach the Tribunal for 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194-I on the lease premium paid. This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case, a CBDT circular, and High Court judgments which treated such lease premiums as capital receipts.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the dividend income earned. Therefore, the addition was restricted to Rs. 25,015. The AO was directed to verify if tax was paid on this amount, and if so, no further disallowance was to be made.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwash Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the assessee had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, and the AO's decision to reopen was based on a change of opinion or an omission on his part. The Tribunal relied on High Court judgments stating that reassessment to correct an AO's error is not valid after four years unless there's a failure by the assessee to disclose facts.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the Board's circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals. Consequently, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Cheminvest Ltd. that Section 14A applies only when exempt income is actually received or receivable. The suo motu disallowance by the assessee was considered sufficient.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that since the loans were taken in earlier years and the interest paid was not disputed in those years, the authorities could not depart from that finding. The disallowance of interest on outstanding loans from previous years was unjustified, especially when the borrowed funds were used for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to the revenue to approach the Tribunal if the tax effect exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to the revenue to approach the Tribunal if the tax effect exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs.
The tribunal, with the consent of the revenue, treated the appeal as withdrawn. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to the assessee to seek recall if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for commission income and unexplained investments in shares, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence. However, a partial addition for unexplained jewellery was sustained.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for commission income and unexplained investments in shares, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence. However, a partial addition for unexplained jewellery was sustained.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by following the Delhi High Court's decision in Cheminvest Ltd. The Tribunal upheld this, stating that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to record and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 40 lacs surrender was meant to cover any unrecorded income or expenditure. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 10 lacs made by the AO should be allowed to be set off against this surrender.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 263 was not properly served to the assessee and that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Pr. CIT for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal followed its earlier order in a similar case and directed the Assessing Officer to retain the addition at 9.25% of the bogus purchases, deleting the balance amount. This was based on the principle that only the gross profit embedded in bogus purchases can be added when sales are not doubted.
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 dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, 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 learned DR had no objection to this condition.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing the monetary limit for departmental appeals is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal, with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50 Lacs, was maintainable for withdrawal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT circulars mandate that appeals with a tax effect below a certain limit should not be filed or pressed. The Revenue's appeals did not fall under any exceptions.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the AO's reasons to believe were based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent application of mind. The approval for reopening was also found to be mechanical.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search related to freight charges, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was bad in law. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to this caveat.