Loading ITAT cases…
938 orders · Page 18 of 19
The Tribunal, following its own previous orders for earlier assessment years, remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The assessee was to be given an opportunity to furnish relevant documents.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the issuance of Form No. 3 in favour of the assessee under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's withdrawal application due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was consigned to record and treated 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 noted the assessee's withdrawal application due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was consigned to record and treated 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The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwash Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.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 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The Tribunal disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee receiving Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to opt 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 found a material difference in the reasons for reopening the assessment, which prejudiced the assessee's ability to defend its case. It also noted that the assessee's evidence was not considered. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a bona fide mistake. Since the quantum additions were deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty levied on those additions was rendered baseless.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was consigned to record and treated as dismissed, with a caveat.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CAM charges were not part of the rent paid to the owner and were paid under a separate agreement to a service provider. Therefore, TDS deduction under Section 194C was appropriate, and the CIT(A)'s order was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT instructions, appeals should not be filed where the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, the departmental appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form No. 3. Therefore, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
The tribunal noted the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and disposed of the appeal. The appeal was to be treated as dismissed as withdrawn upon issuance of Form No. 3.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on FDRs during the pre-operative period, when the business had not commenced, is a capital receipt. This capital receipt is required to be set off against pre-operative expenses.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the matter being settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal, following a High Court judgment, held that the compression of natural gas into CNG results in a new and distinct product with a different name, character, and use. Therefore, this process qualifies as 'manufacture' under Section 2(29BA) of the Income Tax Act, entitling the assessee to additional depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the appellate order was passed without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and was contradictory. Therefore, the order could not be sustained in law.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted the permission.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted the permission.
The Tribunal disposed of the assessee's appeals in terms of the Vivaad se Vishwas Scheme. This was contingent upon the issuance of Form No. 3 in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to record and treat it as dismissed. However, this dismissal is conditional upon the dispute not being resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, allowing the assessee to seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT instructions state that appeals should not be filed where the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs. As the tax effect in these appeals was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, the departmental appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that while LIBOR with a markup is acceptable, a markup of 500 basis points was unjustifiable. Following its own previous decisions and High Court judgments, the Tribunal directed the TPO to re-compute the notional interest at US LIBOR plus 170 basis points.
The Tribunal disposed of the assessee's appeals in terms of the Vivaad se Vishwas Scheme. This was contingent upon the issuance of Form No. 3 in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. This decision was based on CBDT circular No. 17 of 2019.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's statement about settling the dispute under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the settlement failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form No. 3. Therefore, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's request to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, with a caveat for potential reinstitution.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the settlement failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The assessee was granted liberty to re-institute the appeal if the dispute was not resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the issuance of Form No. 3 in favour of the assessee under the Vivaad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's statement about settling the dispute under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if settlement failed for technical reasons.
The tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the Revenue due to the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed on this basis.
The assessee informed the tribunal that they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for settlement of the dispute. The Revenue did not object, and the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the Revenue.
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 Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, 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 Vivaad se Vishwas Scheme in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's proposition to settle the dispute. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's request to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, with a caveat for potential reinstitution.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's proposition to settle the dispute. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal disposed of the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. This was subject to the issuance of Form No. 3 in favor of the assessee under the Vivaad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. However, if the settlement under the scheme is not finalized, the assessee can approach the Tribunal to re-institute the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the Assessing Officer failed to provide comparable cases and there was no evidence of tax evasion, given both the company and directors were in the highest tax bracket.
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 filed by the Revenue was not maintainable in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal disposed of the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the issuance of Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for re-institution of the appeal if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, in view of the CBDT circular and its clarification, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.