Loading ITAT cases…
1,392 orders · Page 5 of 28
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and requested withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to record.
The Tribunal held that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution, following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The assessee was given liberty to pray for recall of the order if they were serious about pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147. It found that the reasons recorded for reopening did not allege a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, which is a prerequisite for reopening beyond four years. The Tribunal also noted a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and superior authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing confirmations, bank statements, audited accounts, and TDS certificates. Since the revenue failed to bring any material to controvert the assessee's submissions, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance was based solely on an investigation report and SEBI's interim order without independent verification. Relying on High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal found that mere reliance on third-party information without corroboration is insufficient to treat transactions as bogus.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not valid as the AO had not applied his own mind and had merely acted upon information received from the Investigation Wing. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. This decision was based on the CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 Lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentary evidence, including bank statements and confirmations from investors, which were also reflected in their balance sheets and income tax returns. The Tribunal found that the inquiries conducted, including those during remand proceedings, corroborated the transactions.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating incriminating material found during the search from the assessee's premises. The appeals were dismissed as the CIT(A) order was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the Revenue failed to rebut the CIT(A)'s factual findings. The AO had not doubted the assessee's book results or sales, and the CIT(A) had confirmed that payments were made by account payee cheques and evidence of dispatch and receipt of goods was provided.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 Lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the enhancement of Rs. 30,00,000/- by the CIT(A) was not valid as there was no evidence to prove that the assessee had actually received the cash. The addition for notional interest was also deleted due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a binding precedent from the Delhi High Court which ruled that rental income from commercial properties should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property'.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating incriminating material found during the search from the assessee's premises. The appeals were dismissed as the CIT(A) order was upheld.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that for invoking Section 153A, no incriminating material should be found, and no assessment/reassessment proceedings should be pending on the date of search. Since these conditions were not met, the addition under Section 14A was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that maintenance and service income, backed by separate agreements, are distinct from rental income and cannot be treated as income from house property. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency and previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The CIT(A) held that proceedings under section 153C were ab initio void because the AO of the searched person had not recorded a satisfaction note. Consequently, the addition made under section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 36 days, finding sufficient cause due to the change in the assessee's business location and non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeals on merits.
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 appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute was not resolved under the Act.
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 appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 36 days, finding sufficient cause due to the change in the assessee's business location and non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
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 Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and that this circular was applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
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 view of 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.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received Form No. 3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. As per Section 4(2) of the Act, upon filing the declaration, any pending appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied if the tax payable under normal provisions is less than the tax payable under Section 115JB, as per CBDT Circular No. 25/2015. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
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 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 noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, with a liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the settlement is not resolved.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 36 days, finding sufficient cause due to the change in the assessee's business location and non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal accepted the Assessee's request. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous, and the Assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. Since there was no objection from the Department, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the stock was overvalued. Specifically, raw materials were valued at a higher rate than purchase price, and finished goods were valued at sale price instead of cost price. The assessee's reconciliation statement was considered.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not considered the CBDT Circular No. 8 of 2006 in its true perspective regarding the definition of 'producer' for the purpose of Rule 6DD. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.