Loading ITAT cases…
1,092 orders · Page 3 of 22
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to provide proper opportunity to the assessee and admit additional evidence. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the TPO/AO had not properly considered the assessee's company profile as a sales and marketing support service provider, and had incorrectly characterized it as an advertisement agency. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the TPO/AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the provision for customer claims was an ascertained liability and ordered its deletion, subject to verification. For advances written off, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh verification of their business purpose.
The Tribunal held that the provision for customer claims was an ascertained liability and ordered its deletion, subject to verification. For advances written off, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh verification of their business purpose.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a liberty to the assessee to approach the tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to the records and treated as dismissed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The tribunal acknowledged that the assessee has filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and received Form-III. Therefore, the appeal was consigned to records.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence during assessment and appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) had rightly considered the capital gains exemption under Section 54 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for sponsoring law students was a business decision aimed at enhancing professional visibility and developing contacts in the international legal fraternity. The Tribunal followed its previous consistent view on similar facts.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, both the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal for the respective assessment years were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in reducing the export turnover by excluding communication, insurance, and travelling expenses. It also stated that not following a High Court judgment solely because an SLP was filed is impermissible.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. It reasoned that the assessee had disclosed all particulars of income and the mistake in computing book profit was bonafide and inadvertent, especially since it was rectified by filing a revised return. Furthermore, the show-cause notice for penalty was found to be vague.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's withdrawal letter and the issuance of Form No.3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Based on this, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition upon which the penalty was levied had been deleted by a prior Tribunal order, the penalty itself becomes infructuous. Therefore, the assessee's appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute related to the revised assessment order. Consequently, the appeal challenging the Section 263 order became infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, leading to the settlement of the dispute. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not dismiss an appeal for default without considering the merits of the case. The CIT(A) should have examined the available records to pass a reasoned order.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the grounds that the issues involved were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, 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 noted the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to approach the Tribunal if the dispute could not be settled for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's 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 noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was considered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer on the grounds adopted by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Direct Taxes Vivaad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and the due taxes were paid. Therefore, 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.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Act and requested withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the grounds that the issues were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal noted that Form No. 3 was issued to the assessee under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Act for the impugned assessment year. Consequently, the appeal was treated as dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated by the CBDT. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as it was not pressed by the counsel.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that both the assessee and the revenue agreed to treat the appeal as withdrawn due to the settlement under the VSVS. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the successful settlement of disputes under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly admitted additional evidence as the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity by the TPO. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of transfer pricing adjustment on reimbursement expenses, finding no defects in the evidence submitted.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but noted it was not intentional, stemming from a large volume of payments and time constraints. However, the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of expenses.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh order. The assessee was directed to be given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions.
The Tribunal, by following its own co-ordinate benches' orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found no distinguishing facts to deviate from the previous rulings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, 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 noted the assessee's application and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the jurisdictional and legal issues raised by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on these grounds.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circulars were binding on tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.