Loading ITAT cases…
938 orders · Page 7 of 19
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 held that the assessee had satisfied the conditions for accumulation under Section 11(2) and directed the Assessing Officer to consider the revised audit report and resolution, allowing consequential benefits. The CIT(A)'s restriction on the claim was found to be incorrect.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeals were dismissed as a consequence of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on capital assets is allowable as application of income, following the Delhi High Court's decision. It also held that disputed rental income, where collection is uncertain, should not be taxed until resolved.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the TNMM method was the most appropriate for benchmarking these transactions. The Tribunal noted that the CUP method was not applicable as the TPO failed to provide comparable uncontrolled transactions.
The assessee requested to withdraw 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. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the settlement was not resolved.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IB(10)(f) can only be proportionately reduced for allotments to related parties, not entirely disallowed. It also directed recomputation of interest under Sections 234B and 234C, finding Section 234C not applicable for shortfalls due to capital gains.
The assessee opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted the assessee's request 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 to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional Income Tax Officer, rendering the entire assessment proceedings void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
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 Act.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided clear reasoning for the applicability of Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all facts and material in its return, including the rent agreement and TDS deduction. The addition was based on a difference of opinion regarding the head of income, not concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if based on incriminating material found during a search. Since the additions for both assessment years lacked such material, the assessee's additional ground was allowed.
The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if based on incriminating material found during a search. Since the additions for both assessment years lacked such material, the assessee's additional ground was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest on advances to sister concerns was incorrect as the assessee had sufficient own interest-free funds. Additions on account of undisclosed rental income were deleted for failure to follow principles of natural justice. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the additions were not based on seized material.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest on advances to sister concerns was not justified if the assessee had sufficient own interest-free funds. Additions on account of undisclosed rental income were deleted due to a failure to follow the principles of natural justice. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the additions were not based on seized material.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest on advances to sister concerns was incorrect as the assessee had sufficient own interest-free funds. Additions on account of undisclosed rental income were deleted for failure to follow principles of natural justice. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the additions were not based on seized material.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, 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 held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the specified monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal found that the issues upon which the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application were not previously raised with the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation at the rate claimed, and the addition on account of cash credits was unjustified. This was because the same parties and transactions were accepted in subsequent years, and the assessee had discharged its initial onus.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the share applicant parties. The CIT(A) had rightly considered the evidence and the fact that the AO had not properly considered the evidence on merit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted 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 held that since the additions made in the assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, were subsequently deleted by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalty is not sustainable. Consequently, the penalty is liable to be cancelled.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
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 held that the discount offered on pre-paid recharge coupons to distributors was in the nature of a sale and purchase transaction, not commission, and thus Section 194H was not applicable. Consequently, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default. The tribunal also ruled that roaming charges did not constitute fees for technical services, negating the need for TDS under Section 194J.
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 settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to 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.