Loading ITAT cases…
1,392 orders · Page 21 of 28
The Tribunal was informed that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and had been issued Form No. 3. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was invalid as it mentioned both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) without specifying which one was applicable. This vitiated the entire penalty proceedings.
The CIT(A) deleted the demand, holding that the assessee was not liable for TDS on cash salary as no incriminating documents proving actual cash payment were found, and the AO's calculation was based on estimation. The Tribunal upheld this decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including official land records and affidavits from purchasers, to support the claimed agricultural income. The revenue authorities' estimations were deemed unsustainable.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can approach the tribunal for reinstitution of the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 held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA for ICDs/CFS could not be sustained in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The issue of amortization of advance lease rent was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further details. The disallowance for the Rail System was also deleted, following consistent past rulings.
The Tribunal held that the matter requires reconsideration as the assessee's submissions and evidence were not properly considered. The assessee argued that sales promotion and discount expenses are not commission under Section 194H and that interest was paid to NBFCs who had already paid taxes.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition made under Section 14A in the original assessment order was deleted by the Tribunal in a previous appeal, there was no basis for the AO or CIT(A) to enhance the disallowance in rectification proceedings. The impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA for ICDs/CFS could not be sustained in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The issue of amortization of advance lease rent was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further details. The disallowance for the Rail System was also deleted, following consistent past rulings.
The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The matter in issue was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and relevant forms were issued.
The Tribunal held that while there was overwriting on the date of service, it could not be definitively established that the date was interpolated by the AO. Therefore, the benefit of doubt was not given to the assessee, and the notice was deemed to be served within time.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form No. 3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeals pending before the Tribunal are deemed to have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form No. 3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. As per Section 4(2) of the Act, appeals pending before the Tribunal are deemed to be withdrawn upon issuance of the certificate.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and a certificate was issued. Consequently, the appeal was deemed to be withdrawn as per the provisions of the Act.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement reached under the MAP.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a university or an educational institution as defined by the Act and judicial precedents. It also found that the assessee was not wholly or substantially financed by the government, as it had only received a repayable loan. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab).
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the VSV scheme, and the Revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a condition for potential reinstitution if the VSV dispute is not resolved.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D, is applicable only when exempt income is actually earned. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) that Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not applicable when no exempt income is earned during the assessment year. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and ITAT decisions, including Cheminvest Ltd. and Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the Revenue can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Ld. DR could not provide any exceptions to this circular.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the coordinate bench's decisions in the assessee's own case for preceding and succeeding years. Since the revenue could not show any distinguishing features, the appeal was dismissed.
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 decided to consign the appeals to records and treat them 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 appeals.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be filed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not complying with Section 269SS, as evidenced by the humanitarian reason for assisting neighbors and the HUDA receipts in their names. Furthermore, the AO did not record any satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
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 approach the Tribunal for reinstitution.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is applicable only when exempt income is actually earned. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is warranted.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D, is applicable only when exempt income is actually earned. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted.
The Tribunal found that the Sale Deed itself contained a clause acknowledging a first charge/equitable mortgage created in favour of IBFSL. This contradicted the claim of the property being free from encumbrances, suggesting the sale was not entirely voluntary but influenced by the lender's pressure to recover the loan.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding the merits. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the settlement of the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The matter had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and relevant forms were issued.
The tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the settlement of the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not dismiss an appeal in limine solely for the assessee's absence but should adjudicate on merits. The CIT(A) should have made an effort to examine the available records.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and IT returns, to substantiate the transactions, and that regulatory approvals were obtained where applicable.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit for appeals, also applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the settlement of the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, with Form No. 3 already issued.
The Tribunal, respectfully following a co-ordinate bench's decision on identical issues, directed the deletion of the disallowances made under Section 40A(3). The appeals were allowed on this ground.