Loading ITAT cases…
938 orders · Page 5 of 19
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's concession. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the settlement under the scheme failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, the revenue's appeal was not maintainable. This circular was also clarified to apply to pending appeals.
The Tribunal decided on various grounds related to the selection and exclusion of comparable companies in transfer pricing adjustments. It upheld the exclusion of certain companies due to functional dissimilarity or extraordinary financial events, while also allowing the inclusion of others.
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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's concession. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the dispute settlement under the scheme failed for technical reasons.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested withdrawal of both appeals, having opted to settle the tax arrears under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The tribunal granted permission for 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 appeals. The Revenue did not object 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 the CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The AO had applied his mind to the issue and accepted the assessee's explanation, and the CIT could not invoke revisional powers merely because he had a different opinion. The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal held that developing an SEZ is the business contemplated under Section 80IAB, and lease rental income generated by a developer of an SEZ constitutes profits and gains derived from that business. Therefore, the deduction is allowable.
The Tribunal decided on various grounds related to the selection and exclusion of comparable companies in transfer pricing adjustments. It upheld the exclusion of certain companies due to functional dissimilarity or extraordinary financial events, while also allowing the inclusion of others.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw 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 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 the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwash Act, the Revenue can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The assessee requested withdrawal of both appeals, having opted to settle the tax arrears under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The tribunal granted permission for withdrawal.
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 Act, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as per the assessee's request.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute 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 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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the machinery was installed and commissioned on March 30, 2013, as evidenced by installation certificates. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, assets kept ready for use are eligible for depreciation.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were 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 appeals. The appeals were 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 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 in light of 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.
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 upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of notional interest on advances to sister concerns and the addition for unexplained investment, finding the sources explained. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance of salary expenses.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as the dispute was settled 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 per the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reopening of the assessment was invalid because it was based on a mere perusal of existing records and constituted a 'change of opinion' without any tangible new material. The CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings was upheld.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted this request.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.