Loading ITAT cases…
1,092 orders · Page 19 of 22
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the issues were already decided in their favor. Consequently, the assessee prayed for the appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the lease transactions were finance leases, following previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the penalty issue was also remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The assessee requested to withdraw all four appeals as the tax dispute had been settled under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. Form No. 3 was issued in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had initiated settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, both appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Act and acknowledged the Department's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it can be reinstituted if the settlement is not resolved.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) which relied on the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year with identical facts. The Tribunal found that the payment of EDC charges in installments with interest was dealt with favorably for the assessee in the earlier year.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the issues were already decided in their favor. Consequently, the assessee prayed for the appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment under Section 153C was not properly complied with as no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the search. The CIT(A) had rightly quashed the assessment order on this legal ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Act, the Revenue can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw all four appeals as the tax dispute had been settled under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. Form No. 3 was issued in favour of the assessee.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the advance received from the parent company was correctly treated as advance and not income for the relevant assessment year, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion. Regarding business promotion expenses, the Tribunal found no specific discrepancies and deleted the addition entirely.
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 prescribed monetary limit.
The assessee requested withdrawal of appeals as they opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
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 noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed the necessary forms. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rejected additional evidence without assigning proper reasons. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to admit the evidence and decide the appeal afresh.
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 Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed the necessary forms. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and not dismissed it solely on non-prosecution. The case was restored to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case.
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 allowed 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 allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the assessee opting to settle the tax dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the parties, violating principles of natural justice. The assessee had provided supporting documents, and the AO did not reject the books of accounts. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's circular enhancing the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the tax effect being below the revised limit.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the core issue regarding the addition made by the AO was already decided on merits by the CIT(A) in the electronic appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of non-appearance without deciding the merits. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it was covered under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to reapply if the settlement under the Act fails.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit. The appeal was dismissed based on the CBDT circular.
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 to withdraw the appeal. The assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and obtained a certificate.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been issued Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Act for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs would not be preferred by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable.
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 granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed the necessary forms. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.