Loading ITAT cases…
938 orders · Page 14 of 19
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was because the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwash Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.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 considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to refile if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for re-institution if the settlement under the scheme is not finalized.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn by the assessee. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeals if the dispute is not settled as per the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn by the assessee. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeals if the dispute is not settled as per the scheme.
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, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence as the Assessing Officer had the opportunity to comment on it and conduct further inquiries. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as it did not challenge the merits of the additions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, aimed at promoting internet services and infrastructure for public benefit, were charitable in nature. Therefore, it was eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, aimed at promoting internet services and infrastructure for public benefit, were charitable in nature. Therefore, it was eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable as the tax effect is below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular applies to pending appeals, and the department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
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 found that the CIT(A) deleted the entire addition without properly verifying the details and a difference of approximately Rs. 18 crores remained unexplained. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further investigation.
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 Scheme, the assessee can request for reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the assessment order dated 28.04.2016, framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had directed the AO to re-examine documents that had already been thoroughly examined during both the original assessment proceedings and the reassessment proceedings. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that out of the cash deposit entries cited as reasons for reopening the assessment, only an entry of Rs. 2 lacs pertained to the Financial Year 2008-09, which is relevant to the Assessment Year 2009-10 under consideration. The other entries did not relate to the year under appeal. A report from the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Exemption, dated 19.03.2019, confirmed that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000 pertaining to AY 2009-10 was deposited in the account of Mr. Ravinder, and the assessee had submitted supporting documents for land purchase and demand drafts. The office agreed with the assessee's contention, and an order for NIL income was passed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the assessment order dated 28.04.2016.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication, with a direction to give the assessee ample opportunity to present their case.
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 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 held that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that they could be reinstituted if the settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal treated the assessee's appeal as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement was not resolved. The Revenue's appeal was also consigned to record and treated as dismissed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal treated the assessee's appeal as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement was not resolved. The Revenue's appeal was also consigned to record and treated as dismissed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the assessee's release from jail and the time taken to settle. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and pass a reasoned order on merits.
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 appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal held that filing a belated return and non-registration under Section 12AA are not sufficient grounds to issue a notice under Section 148 for reassessment. The AO had lost the opportunity to issue notice under Section 143(2) and resorted to Section 148 without other tangible material.
The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them 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 appeals.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the request.
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 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 liberty to the assessee to seek reinstitution if the settlement is not resolved.
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 Scheme, 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.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals. Consequently, all appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee were dismissed.
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 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 appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the AO recorded incorrect facts in the reasons for reopening and failed to verify the information. Cash deposits per se do not constitute income, and the AO did not apply their mind to the facts.
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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
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 appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.