Loading ITAT cases…
381 orders · Page 3 of 8
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as per the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on incriminating material found during the search. It also noted that the assessment was not abated. The Tribunal allowed the deletion of additions related to gift, loan, and benefit on flat purchase, citing similar cases and lack of fresh evidence.
The Tribunal held that additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on incriminating material found during the search. It also noted that the assessment was not abated. The Tribunal allowed the deletion of additions related to gift, loan, and benefit on flat purchase, citing similar cases and lack of fresh evidence.
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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 to withdraw 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as per the assessee's request.
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 appeals. The appeals were 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 held that the AO wrongly considered unutilized grants as income and disallowed expenses. The CIT(A) had correctly considered the facts and the assessee's submissions, including details of unutilized grants and expenses.
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 ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal summarily without a speaking order. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submissions regarding no business transactions with M/s Radhika Wool Traders were not considered by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication and verification of evidence.
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 found that the AO did not properly verify the difference in service tax returns and remanded the issue back to the AO for proper adjudication after considering the assessee's evidence.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was acknowledged.
The Tribunal found that the issues regarding purchases, wages, salary, and other expenses were not identical to a previous assessment year due to factual differences. It noted the assessee's contention that documents were produced but not properly examined by the AO.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as per the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied is invalid because the notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity renders the penalty order bad in law.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted the request.
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 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 in light of 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 held that the share premium/capital was received in the previous year and thus could not be added in the current assessment year. It also upheld the deletion of expenses, considering them necessary to keep the business operational.
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 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 per the assessee's 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 in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
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 noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form No. 3. Therefore, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted the request.