Loading ITAT cases…
938 orders · Page 17 of 19
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed, with a liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the merits of the case, which was contrary to statutory requirements. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the assessed income is the same as the returned income, as there is no tax sought to be evaded. The reclassification of income without any change in the total assessed income does not warrant penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was passed without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard, as the notices were returned unserved. Therefore, the order could not be sustained.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn, subject to the issuance of Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal treated the appeal 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 found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's explanation for the defect and without granting an opportunity to explain the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that even a single transaction can constitute business. The assessee's contention that the business had commenced was supported by evidence of sales and purchases, and the expenses incurred were for business operations. Therefore, the disallowance of business loss and the disallowance of carry forward of loss were incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been fully cooperative with the revenue authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee chose to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to get it restored if the dispute is not settled as per the scheme.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee concerning the lack of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) and the mechanical approval for reassessment under Section 151. The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law and quashed the addition.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal concerning the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) and mechanical approval under Section 151. It held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law and quashed the addition.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the settlement of the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal noted that the assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to this request.
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 Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the issuance of Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the revenue authorities was on an estimate basis and not supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced documentary evidence and statements supporting their claim.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to revive them if the dispute settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to revive them if the dispute settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of burning loss was not tenable as it depended on the furnace and material used, and the assessee's percentage was accurate. The loan from Smt. Bimla Devi was genuine as it was through banking channels and she was an income tax assessee. The cartage outward expenses were also supported by evidence and the AO's disallowance based on comparison with the previous year was not valid.
The tribunal noted that the assessee has settled the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and has been issued Forms 1 & 2. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn, subject to the issuance of Form 3.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a previous ruling that dividend income from OMIFCO-Oman is not considered exempt income for the purpose of Section 14A disallowance. Therefore, it should be excluded from the calculation.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's circular revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and this applied to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal with a low tax effect was not maintainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's concession to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the settlement failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts and the issue was debatable, thus not attracting penalty provisions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn, subject to the issuance of Form No. 3.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, stating it cannot be sustained in law as it was passed without providing a hearing opportunity. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the payment received from BCCI is exempt from tax. This is because BCCI is a registered trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, and the second proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) exempts sums received from such entities.
The Tribunal held that the subsidies received were capital in nature, as they were granted for setting up industrial units in backward areas and for technological upgradation, aligning with the purpose test laid down by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the dispute settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. This decision quashed assessment orders passed against a non-existent entity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal if Form 3 was not issued.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circular is binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. This decision quashed assessment orders passed against a non-existent entity.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. This decision quashed assessment orders passed against a non-existent entity.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circulars were binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's concession. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the dispute could not be settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not applicable when there is no exempt income earned by the assessee. The disallowance of expenditure requires actual expenditure and the existence of exempt income.