Loading ITAT cases…
381 orders · Page 4 of 8
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 settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was acknowledged.
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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 appeal. The appeal was dismissed as per the assessee's decision to settle the dispute.
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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. A Form No. 3 was issued in their favour.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 appeal. The appeal was dismissed as per the assessee's request.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal granted the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the assessee's attempt to rectify the issue with the AO, which remained unattended. Therefore, the delay constituted a sufficient cause, and the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the transaction as genuine. The purchase and sale of shares at significantly different prices within a short period, coupled with SEBI's observations of abnormal activities, led to the conclusion that the transaction was not bona fide.
The Tribunal found that the addition was sustained without proper verification of transaction details and source of investment. Considering the pandemic and the interest of substantial justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the transaction.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the settlement of the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. A Form No. 3 was issued in their favour.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was without jurisdiction and barred by limitation as no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the search. Consequently, the assessment orders passed were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was without jurisdiction and barred by limitation as no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the search. Consequently, the assessment orders passed were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the main additions on which the penalties were based had been deleted by a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT. Therefore, the penalties levied on these additions were no longer sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the main additions on which the penalties were based had been deleted by a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT. Therefore, the penalties levied on these additions were no longer sustainable.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the welfare of police personnel constitutes a 'section of the public' and that the club's objects are charitable. Therefore, the club is eligible for registration under Section 12A.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not based on any incriminating material found during the search operation. The statement of the valuer, which formed the basis of the disallowance, was recorded post-search. Therefore, the reassessment under Section 153A was not justified for this issue.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT deleted the disallowance on advertisement expenses, finding no specific defects pointed out by the CIT(A). For foreign travel expenses, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with directions to the assessee to furnish specific documentary evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to examine the applicability of the peak credit theory for cash deposits, considering simultaneous withdrawals.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's belief that income had escaped assessment was based on AIR information regarding cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared income under the head 'Business and Profession'.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that purchase and sale bills were submitted and that the same AO had accepted a similar business income in a subsequent year based on a profit rate. The Tribunal directed that a net profit of 11% on total bank deposits should be considered.
The Tribunal held that since the addition of notional interest, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted, the penalty itself must also be deleted. The principle 'sublato fundamento cadit opus' (when the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls) was applied.
The Tribunal held that if the original reason for reopening the assessment under Section 147 ceases to survive, the AO cannot make additions on other grounds without issuing a fresh notice under Section 148 after recording fresh reasons.
The Tribunal held that since the addition of notional interest, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted, the penalty itself must also be deleted. The principle 'sublato fundamento cadit opus' (when the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls) was applied.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide supporting documents and prove their books of accounts. Therefore, a best judgment assessment was necessary, and the net profit rate was reduced to 1.5%.
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 appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO to verify if substantive addition was made in the hands of PACL Ltd. If so, the disallowance in the assessee's hands would amount to double taxation and should be deleted. If not, the CIT(A)'s order confirming the substantive addition in the assessee's hands would be sustained.
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. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition of notional interest was deleted by a coordinate bench, the penalty levied on that basis must also be deleted. The principle 'sublato fundamento cadit opus' (when the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls) was applied.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the addition of notional interest, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted, the penalty itself must also be deleted. The principle 'sublato fundamento cadit opus' (when the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls) was applied.