Loading ITAT cases…
1,092 orders · Page 21 of 22
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 Consequently, the assessee's appeals and cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals. Both assessee and Revenue were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal, with the consent of the Senior DR, treated the appeal as withdrawn. The appeal was dismissed subject to the assessee's liberty to seek recall if the dispute settlement under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies were correctly excluded by the CIT(A) and upheld the decision to grant working capital adjustment. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to grant working capital adjustment based on the OECD formula.
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 Consequently, the assessee's appeals and cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn.
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 Consequently, the assessee's appeals and cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn.
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 Consequently, the assessee's appeals and cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable as the assessee had received assessment and appellate orders at the same address. The Tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for a fresh decision after proper service of notice.
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 Consequently, the assessee's appeals and cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn.
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 noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the original addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted, the penalty could no longer be sustained. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities confirming the penalty were reversed.
The Tribunal excluded two comparable companies, Excel Infoways Ltd. and BNR Udyog Ltd., from the set of comparables used for benchmarking. It also directed that foreign exchange losses should be treated as operating in nature for margin computation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute settlement failed.
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 noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made adequate enquiries and accepted a plausible view based on the second valuation report. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appellate order lacked specific points for determination and reasons for decision.
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Designated Authority had issued orders confirming the settlement. Consequently, the assessee's appeals and cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application and consigned the appeal to records, treating it as dismissed. However, it allowed the assessee to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circulars, the Department should not file appeals before the Tribunal if the tax effect does not exceed the specified monetary limits. Since the tax effect was below the limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
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 noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to incorrect and non-existent reasons recorded by the AO, and the approval was mechanical. The AO failed to apply his mind to the information received.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 35(2AB) as the responsibility to obtain Form 3CL lies with the AO, and the R&D unit was duly recognized. Furthermore, the incentive received under the Foreign Trade Policy was held to be a capital receipt.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the CBDT's revised monetary limit for filing appeals. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This decision was made 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 since the purchases and sales were accepted, and the parties had running accounts with regular transactions, the year-end outstanding balance to sundry creditors could not be treated as unexplained income under Section 68.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the captioned appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's concession to resolve the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the dispute could not be settled for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the captioned appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's concession to resolve the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the dispute could not be settled for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's concession to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the settlement failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's concession to resolve the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the dispute could not be settled for technical reasons.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's concession to resolve the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the dispute could not be settled for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This decision was based on a statement made by the authorized representative for the assessee during the hearing. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. No other issues were decided, and no specific reasoning beyond the assessee's request for withdrawal was provided in the judgment. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's concession to resolve the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the dispute could not be settled for technical reasons.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form No.3. Therefore, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. A Form No. 3 was issued in their favor.
The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies were correctly excluded by the CIT(A) and upheld the decision to grant working capital adjustment. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to grant working capital adjustment based on the OECD formula.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute settlement failed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals set by the CBDT. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.