Loading ITAT cases…
540 orders · Page 6 of 11
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that since no new additions were made in the Section 153A proceedings and the issues were already decided in favor of the assessee by the predecessor CIT(A), the Revenue's appeal had become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was passed under section 143(3) and not under section 144, the earlier non-compliance with the notice was considered adequately addressed. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal without going into its merits. 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 held that since the primary addition in the quantum appeal for the same assessment year was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty levied on that addition cannot survive. The penalty was accordingly deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the proper computation of deductions under Section 80IA/80IB and the eligibility for deduction under Section 80M based on dividend distribution. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the transactions between the assessee and M/s Ruchi Infotech Systems were genuine, as confirmed by CESTAT orders. Furthermore, the outstanding liability was paid in subsequent years, and the assessee's books of account were not rejected, thus Section 41(1) was not attracted.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 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 appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw 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 accordingly dismissed.
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 withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The appeal was dismissed as it had become infructuous due to 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 the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Income Tax Appellate 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 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 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 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 in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 3,82,200/- made by the AO for payments to four individuals, where each payment was below Rs. 1,80,000/-, was unsustainable and deleted. Regarding the Rs. 3,36,000/- addition, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not made a finding on whether the payee's income was below the taxable limit, and thus the addition could not be sustained.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme certificate showed the amount payable as NIL.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and received the relevant form. The Tribunal accepted 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, noting that no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding prior period expenses, finding no infirmity in the order.
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 respondent DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of director's remuneration was unsustainable due to lack of justification and acceptance in subsequent years. It also held that no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) can be made for short deduction of TDS if a lower deduction certificate was provided.
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 withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of the capital asset to a wholly-owned subsidiary is not a transfer for the purpose of Section 45 of the Act, in view of Section 47(iv). The claims of the revenue authorities were found to be unjustified and untenable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had the right to rectify errors in the surrendered amount based on seized documents, as long as it was not a retraction. Since the seized documents were not directly related to the assessee and the company's undisclosed income was accepted, the addition in the assessee's hands was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of the capital asset to a wholly-owned subsidiary is not a transfer for the purpose of Section 45 of the Act, in view of Section 47(iv). The claims of the revenue authorities were found to be unjustified and untenable.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.