Loading ITAT cases…
1,092 orders · Page 6 of 22
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the request.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and decided to consign the appeal to records, treating it as dismissed. 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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The Income Tax Appellate 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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, 2020.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the investments were strategic and not funded by borrowed money, and that the depreciation claim on windmills was supported by evidence already on record. The interest disallowance was also deemed incorrect as the borrowed funds were used for business purposes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and the Senior DR had no objection.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and the Senior DR had no objection.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as per the assessee's decision to settle the dispute.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and had dismissed it without providing an opportunity for a hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court judgment, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the merits of the case.
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 for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as per the assessee's request.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and had dismissed it without providing an opportunity for a hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as the assessee opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
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 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 assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person, when the Assessing Officer was aware of the death, is null and void from the outset. The Assessing Officer should have brought the legal heirs on record.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was remanded for fresh disposal.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the issues being settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and the issuance of Form No.3 by the Department.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the method of maintaining books of accounts was consistent and that the expenses claimed were reasonable and comparable to previous years. The Tribunal also noted that a coordinate bench had deleted similar disallowances for a sister concern.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the shares were not sweat equity and the valuation was notional. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the Revenue did not challenge the quantum of addition on merits and relied on previous decisions in similar cases.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to restore it if the dispute settlement failed.