Loading ITAT cases…
1,392 orders · Page 6 of 28
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 Since there was no objection from the Department, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 assessee sought to withdraw the appeal because they opted to settle the tax arrears under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal.
The tribunal noted the assessee's intention to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and consequently consigned the appeal to records. The dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Act, 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) found that original bills and confirmations were not properly filed. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the original bills and vouchers with proper confirmations.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 this request.
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.
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 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 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 dismissed the ground related to depreciation on finance leased assets, holding it to be part of the assessee's business. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was remanded to the AO for proper quantification and adjudication.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek reinstitution if the settlement is not resolved.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed. This is 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 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 Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
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.
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 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 Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The withdrawal 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 appeals. The withdrawal 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 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 appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred by not passing a separate assessment order for the non-resident's income in the assessee's representative capacity. The addition of the non-resident's capital gains to the assessee's individual income was deemed invalid.
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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as the dispute was settled 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 per the assessee's decision to settle 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 noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
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 dismissal of the appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to this course of action.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn due to the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled as per the scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for dismissal of the appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to this course of action.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as per the assessee's request.