Loading ITAT cases…
1,092 orders · Page 12 of 22
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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute settlement under the scheme was not finalized.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal acknowledged the exceptional circumstances preventing the assessees from producing evidence before the lower authorities. It allowed the admission of additional evidence and set aside the impugned orders.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwash Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the dispute was settled. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Act and agreed to the withdrawal of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as requested.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and the caveat that the appeal can be reinstituted if the settlement fails. The appeal was consigned to record and treated as dismissed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This dismissal is 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 held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. The circular was applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the resolution of the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. However, it allowed the assessee to seek reinstitution of appeals if the dispute is not ultimately resolved under the scheme.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. This was due to the assessee opting to settle the tax dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merit with reasoning, even in case of non-representation. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the VSV scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Act.
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 Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the Board's instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the exceptional circumstances preventing the assessees from producing evidence before the lower authorities. It allowed the admission of additional evidence and set aside the impugned orders.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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 tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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's counsel sought permission to withdraw all the appeals. Since the matters were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and relevant forms were issued, the tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw all the appeals. Since the matters were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and relevant forms were issued, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw all the appeals due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted the permission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute was not resolved under the Act.
The Tribunal found some merit in the CIT's concerns regarding donors traveling with visually impaired persons and their relationships. However, the assessee's explanation for needing volunteers was also considered. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh examination.
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 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 Tribunal held that the AO wrongly rejected the assessee's valuation of shares as per Rule 11UA of the IT Rules. The AO failed to follow the prescribed procedure for valuation. Therefore, the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) was unsustainable.
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 Tribunal found some merit in the CIT's concerns regarding donors traveling with visually impaired persons and their relationships. However, the assessee's explanation for needing volunteers was also considered. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute was not resolved under the scheme.
The tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the issuance of Form No. 3.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Revenue and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form No.3. Therefore, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal as the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal is consigned to record and treated as dismissed, subject to the dispute being resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the option money received by the assessee is a capital receipt. It should be adjusted at the time of transfer of shares to determine capital gains, rather than being taxed as revenue in the year of receipt.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed. This is 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 ordered that the appeals be consigned to record and treated 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 appeals.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the settlement under the scheme is not resolved.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the CBDT's instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for re-institution if the settlement is not ultimately resolved.
The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be consigned to record and treated 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 appeals.