Loading ITAT cases…
1,092 orders · Page 20 of 22
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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed the necessary forms. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
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 Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the dispute is not settled under the scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this course of action.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable as it pertains to unexplained cash credits received by the assessee, not loans advanced by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that simply because consultancy services were treated as capital in nature, it does not automatically mean the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars. It also held that penalty proceedings are separate and the assessee can provide evidence to rebut charges, directing deletion of penalties.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2 lakh from Suman Arya and Rs. 5 lakh from Jasbir Singh were not warranted, as the source of funds was sufficiently explained or evidenced by bank transfers. The remaining additions upheld by the CIT(A) were sustained.
The Tribunal held that the sale deed was executed in the financial year 2012-13, and the expenses were incurred in the financial year 2011-12. Even if full-fledged operations ceased, the factory was still under the assessee's control with stocks present, making the expenses for business purposes.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the TPO to re-verify the adjustment by considering only the trading segment. The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the TPO's order as bad in law, stating it was not made without application of mind.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form No. 3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, which deems any pending appeal to be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was considered withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the AO recorded incorrect and non-existing reasons. Cash deposits per se do not constitute income, and the AO failed to verify the information before initiating reassessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 81,79,623, considering only investments yielding exempt income. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding disallowance of expenses under Section 37, finding them to be allowable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This withdrawal 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 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 Act, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the fact that the matter had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding it to be not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the 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 withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee opted to settle the dispute under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to restore it if the dispute is not settled.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted this request.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had requested withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Act. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in the absence of any objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivaad Se Vishwas scheme. Since the necessary form was issued and the revenue did not object, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal acknowledged the settlement and the withdrawal request.
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 to withdraw the appeal, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2 Crores towards unexplained share application money, as the assessee failed to substantiate its genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,92,00,000/- towards unexplained income from sale of flats.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals before the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and had been issued Form No.3. Consequently, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was made subject to the issuance of Form No. 3 in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request, subject to the condition that the settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Act is not concluded. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for recall if the settlement fails.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the fact that the matter had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
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 granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2 Crores towards unexplained share application money, as the assessee failed to substantiate its genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,92,00,000/- towards unexplained income from sale of flats.
The tribunal noted that as per Section 4(2) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, an appeal pending before the tribunal is deemed to be withdrawn upon the issuance of a certificate under Section 5. Since Form No. 3 (certificate) was issued, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.
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 Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle a related quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the issue of adjustment for overdue receivables needs to be re-examined in light of previous judgments and the impact of working capital adjustment. It also held that depreciation and insurance expenses on assets used for the assessee's business, even if located at a third-party manufacturer's premises, are allowable.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was consigned to record and treated as dismissed for statistical purposes, subject to reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, subject to the condition that it could be restored if the dispute was not settled under the scheme. The Revenue had no objection.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to recall the order if the settlement under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Designated Authority had issued settlement orders. Consequently, the assessee's appeals and cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn.