Loading ITAT cases…
1,092 orders · Page 11 of 22
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be consigned to records and treated as dismissed. However, it allowed the assessee to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be consigned to records and treated as dismissed. However, it allowed the assessee to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. 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 per the assessee's request.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning the classification of sales tax and central excise subsidies as revenue receipts. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeals on certain issues, while restoring others to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
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 tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed as it fell within the ambit of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification, which made the revised monetary limits applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue. This dismissal was conditional, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute settlement under the scheme was not finalized.
The Tribunal held that the payment made to ITC Ltd. was revenue in nature, incurred to avoid commercial inconveniences and facilitate business operations, rather than acquiring an enduring asset. Therefore, it is allowable as a revenue expenditure.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the minimum threshold for filing appeals as per CBDT circulars. The Revenue's representative agreed that the appeal was not maintainable and did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue. This dismissal was conditional, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute settlement under the scheme was not finalized.
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 Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. 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 restored the issue of interest disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. The grounds challenging the reassessment proceedings were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer passed a regular assessment order under Section 143(3) and accepted the returned income, it indicated satisfaction with the overall compliances. Therefore, the penalty levied for non-compliance was cancelled.
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 dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue. This dismissal was conditional, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute settlement under the scheme was not finalized.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it to be in line with the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision. The High Court had previously held the assessee to be a charitable organization eligible for exemption.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT Circular and its subsequent clarification. The merits of the case were not considered.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous assessment years where the Tribunal had decided in favour of the assessee. Following the co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal because the issues were settled under the Vivad Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law because the AO failed to record satisfaction and the show-cause notice did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) the penalty proceedings were initiated under. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalty as the additions on which it was based were already deleted by the ITAT. The Revenue failed to point out any fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalty as the additions on which it was based were already deleted by the ITAT. The Revenue failed to point out any fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalty as the additions on which it was based were already deleted by the ITAT. The Revenue failed to point out any fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Act.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous and also dismissed.
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 appeal was dismissed in limine without considering the merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalty as the additions on which it was based were already deleted by the ITAT. The Revenue failed to point out any fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings.