Loading ITAT cases…
1,392 orders · Page 27 of 28
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 appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for dismissal of the appeal. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed 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 the withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
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 found that the assessee had provided substantial evidence for the loans, including confirmations and bank statements. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not discharged the onus of proving the loans were not genuine, especially after the assessee provided evidence of repayment and the parties were assessed locally.
The Tribunal decided that some issues were covered by earlier orders and were to be set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. For other issues, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order or partly allowed the appeal by restricting the disallowance.
The Tribunal decided that some issues were covered by earlier orders and were to be set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. For other issues, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order or partly allowed the appeal by restricting the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) improperly dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding on merit. The case was restored to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was deleted, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. Therefore, the penalty order was bad in law.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the dispute is not settled as per the scheme.
The Tribunal decided that some issues were covered by earlier orders and were to be set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. For other issues, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order or partly allowed the appeal by restricting the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that advances made before the disbursement of a specific term loan of Rs. 329 lakhs could not be considered to be funded by that loan. However, an advance of Rs. 90.30 lakhs made on March 9, 2011, could be considered to be funded by a term loan received on the same date.
The Tribunal decided that some issues were covered by earlier orders and were to be set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. For other issues, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order or partly allowed the appeal by restricting the disallowance.
The Tribunal noted that Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Act had been issued, confirming the settlement of the dispute. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the borrowed funds were used for business purposes and there were contractual restrictions preventing pre-payment of loans. Therefore, no disallowance of interest was warranted under Section 36(1)(iii).
The Tribunal held that the borrowed funds were used for business purposes and there were contractual restrictions preventing pre-payment of loans. Therefore, no disallowance of interest was warranted under Section 36(1)(iii).
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in each case was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular was also clarified to be applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in each case was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular was also clarified to be applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in each case was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular was also clarified to be applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation was rectified by the AO himself under Section 154 of the Act, and the assessee did not claim the deduction of depreciation itself, thus there was no occasion for disallowance. Therefore, the deletion of depreciation by the CIT(A) was upheld. On the issue of donation, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had specifically directed the AO to verify the identity and address of donors for certain cases amounting to Rs. 5,40,000/-. If the proof of identity was furnished, no addition was required. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, especially since the assessee had shown the identity of the donors, and the CIT(A) had remanded the matter for proper verification of specific cases. The Revenue's grievance was not substantiated as the CIT(A) had provided directions for further verification rather than outright deletion without due process for all cases.
The Tribunal deleted the ad-hoc addition for salary and wages, stating that no such disallowance can be sustained without specific defects. However, it upheld the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid after the due date, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Bharat Hotels Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred by relying solely on the 'nil' assets and liabilities reported in the return of income, neglecting the assessee's financial statements. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on beneficial ownership, considering the financial statements and other documents.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated under, citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeals as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted this request.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this condition.
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 seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable to all pending appeals.
The Tribunal found that the submissions made by the assessee regarding the factual nature of the expenses were not adequately addressed by the lower authorities. Due to a lack of clarity on the facts, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for detailed verification.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeals as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted this request.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses cannot be treated as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with a liberty to approach the Tribunal if Form 3 was not issued.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, following its own previous orders and High Court decisions. It held that CSR expenses were incurred as per mandatory guidelines for a government undertaking, mobilization advance addition was not justified due to lack of crystallized right, and Section 14A disallowance was invalid without proper satisfaction by the AO.
The Tribunal held that Section 54F(1) is a substantive provision and its conditions were met by purchasing the new house within the stipulated period. Non-compliance with the procedural requirement of depositing funds in the Capital Gains Account Scheme under Section 54F(4) does not disqualify the assessee.
The tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition based on presumption without any corroborative evidence or information to prove that the assessee maintained the foreign bank account or earned interest thereon during the assessment year under appeal. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was justified.
The Tribunal held that goodwill falls under the category of 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature' as specified in Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, making it eligible for depreciation. Therefore, the disallowance by the lower authorities was incorrect.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for dismissal of the appeals. The Senior DR for the Revenue had no objection to this course of action.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that additions could not be made under Section 153A proceedings in the absence of incriminating material, especially when assessments were already completed and no notice under Section 143(2) was issued prior to the search. Therefore, the legal grounds were allowed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for dismissal of the appeals. The Senior DR for the Revenue had no objection to this course of action.
The Tribunal held that additions could not be made under Section 153A proceedings in the absence of incriminating material, especially when assessments were already completed and no notice under Section 143(2) was issued prior to the search. Therefore, the legal grounds were allowed.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. No objection was raised by the Department.