Loading ITAT cases…
540 orders · Page 7 of 11
The Tribunal held that since the surrendered income was already recorded in the books of accounts as property income, it should be treated as business income. Therefore, set-off of business losses against this income is permissible.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw its appeal and dismiss the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous, and the assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits lacked sufficient evidence. However, in the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a direction for the assessee to provide necessary documentary evidence.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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 found that the assessee expressed willingness to file a rejoinder before the CIT(A) and, in the interest of substantial justice, decided to provide one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as per the assessee's request.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The tribunal granted the assessee one opportunity to explain its affairs, considering the change of address and the initiation of insolvency proceedings.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as per the assessee's request.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for AY 2005-06 was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Following this precedent, the Tribunal also restored the present issue to the AO for a fresh decision, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that since the search took place after the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 153A had expired and no incriminating material was found for the assessment year 2009-10, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's contention was upheld.
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 the assessee opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of parties from whom cash was deposited, making the deposits unexplained under Section 68. The claim for peak credit was also not substantiated.
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 for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of parties from whom cash was deposited, making the deposits unexplained under Section 68. The claim for peak credit was also not substantiated.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Income Tax Appellate 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 its appeal and dismiss the Revenue's appeal. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.
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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the carry forward and set-off of deficits for charitable trusts are permissible based on established High Court judgments and a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowances as the issues were identical to those decided in earlier years by the ITAT and jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
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 based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary documentary evidence and cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that NOIDA is constituted under a State Act and is therefore entitled to exemption from TDS under Section 194A(1) of the Income Tax Act. This position was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
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 the dispute was settled 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 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 withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that payments of interest to Noida Authority are covered under the exemption from TDS as per Section 194A(3)(iii)(f). The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in similar cases.
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 their appeal and dismiss the Revenue's appeal as infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn by the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C is not applicable to transactions prior to its insertion and also not applicable to income exempt under Sections 11 and 12. It also found that the reassessment proceedings were time-barred.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on a concession by the Senior DR that the appeal was not maintainable due to CBDT Circulars regarding pecuniary limits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
For AY 2008-09 to 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. For AY 2012-13, the issue of bogus purchases was remanded to the AO to ascertain the fate of substantive additions made in another entity's hands.
For AY 2008-09 to 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. For AY 2012-13, the issue of bogus purchases was remanded to the AO to ascertain the fate of substantive additions made in another entity's hands.
For AY 2008-09 to 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. For AY 2012-13, the issue of bogus purchases was remanded to the AO to ascertain the fate of substantive additions made in another entity's hands.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. For AY 2012-13, the matter of protective additions was remanded to the AO to ascertain the fate of substantive additions made in another entity's hands.
For AY 2008-09 to 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. For AY 2012-13, the issue of bogus purchases was remanded to the AO to ascertain the fate of substantive additions made in another entity's hands.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of both additions. Interest on late payment of service tax was held to be compensatory and deductible. Delayed deposit of employee's PF/ESI contributions was also allowed as deductible, following jurisdictional High Court decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents did not relate to the assessee but to his elder brother and sister-in-law. Since the entire payment was made through banking channels and the property was allotted in their names, the addition made by the AO was not justified.