Loading ITAT cases…
1,392 orders · Page 9 of 28
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 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 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The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Act.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 per the assessee's request.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 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 based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly 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 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 appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
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 appeals. 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 appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was acknowledged.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for 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 application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
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 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. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that due to technical glitches in the e-filing website at the time of filing, the assessee should not be put to a disadvantage. For substantial justice, the CIT(A) was directed to admit the manual appeal for regular hearing.
The Tribunal held that in case of substantial expansion, the previous year of expansion becomes the initial assessment year, entitling the assessee to 100% deduction. This is supported by Supreme Court and High Court decisions, and the Revenue did not dispute the fact of substantial expansion.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. This was done to ensure justice, considering the assessee's repeated non-appearance and the CIT(A)'s ex-parte decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was because the matters in issue had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, and relevant forms had been issued by the Department.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was because the matters in issue had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, and relevant forms had been issued by the Department.
The Tribunal held that assessments made under Section 153A/153C without any incriminating material found during a search are without jurisdiction and thus void. Consequently, the revisional orders passed under Section 263 against such void assessments are also bad in law.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and receipt of the relevant form.
The Tribunal held that a legal claim can be made at any stage and the cited Supreme Court decision does not restrict appellate authorities. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the reinvestment of sale proceeds.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and did not properly adjudicate the issues, including the initiation of reassessment. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.