Loading ITAT cases…
1,392 orders · Page 23 of 28
The Tribunal held that for AY 2007-08, no incriminating material was found during the search, and the assessment was non-abated, making the addition under Section 2(22)(e) unsustainable, following the Kabul Chawla case. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal found that the advance was a running current account with repayments, and the addition was made without proper reasoning, thus allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the additions were based on assumptions and not on relevant search material belonging to the assessee, citing the Kabul Chawla case. It also noted that the additional payments were reimbursed and not debited to the P&L account, thus not eligible for disallowance.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contention and noted that Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was on record. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contention and noted that Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was on record. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to the non-issuance of a valid notice under section 143(2) by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer within the prescribed time limit. The notice issued by the non-jurisdictional ITO at Malegaon was considered a nullity.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contention and noted that Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was on record. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contention and noted that Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was on record. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the sub-brokerage payment, which was made through banking channels after TDS deduction. The AO failed to bring any evidence to dispute the genuineness of these transactions.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contention and noted that Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was on record. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied as the assessee had transferred assets at book value and the TPO's adjustment using WDV under the Income Tax Act was not a ground for penalty. Similarly, the disallowance of expenses was due to the AO's incorrect assumption about business activity cessation, not due to inaccurate particulars furnished by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2007-08, no incriminating material was found during the search, and the assessment was non-abated, making the addition under Section 2(22)(e) unsustainable, following the Kabul Chawla case. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal found that the advance was a running current account with repayments, and the addition was made without proper reasoning, thus allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee did not challenge the reopening of assessment or request the reasons for it.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the matter being settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The assessee was directed to attend the proceedings and defend their case, with the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 under the scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary forms. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed with liberty to restore them if the dispute was not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary forms. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed with liberty to restore them if the dispute was not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee opted to settle the dispute under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020" and filed necessary forms. The ITAT dismissed the appeal with liberty to restore it if the dispute is not settled as per the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the VSV Act, parties can seek reinstitution of the appeals. The Tribunal would consider such applications appropriately.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute is not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal noted the assessee's withdrawal application due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to restore it if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee did not challenge the reopening of assessment or request the reasons for it.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to approach the Tribunal 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 received Form No. 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 was issued. Consequently, 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 held that the disallowance of travelling expenses was made on conjecture and surmises without any specific defects pointed out. It also directed the AO to charge income tax on the correct assessed income.
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 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.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw 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 by the Tribunal.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw 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 held that the penalty was not sustainable because the AO's satisfaction for initiating proceedings was invalid and the show-cause notice was vague, failing to specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal followed precedents from the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.