Loading ITAT cases…
540 orders · Page 8 of 11
The tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal granted the withdrawal request.
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 the issuance of Form No. 3.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their initial onus under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence, which the AO failed to refute. The AO's reliance on investigation reports obtained behind the assessees' back and without confronting them was deemed a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their initial onus under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence, which the AO failed to refute. The AO's reliance on investigation reports obtained behind the assessees' back and without confronting them was deemed a violation of natural justice.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, was quashed, the penalty itself should be deleted. Consequently, the AO was directed to remove the penalty.
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 restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claim. The assessee is directed to appear without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's IT services (software development) and ITES segments should be benchmarked independently, following the rule of consistency. It also directed the TPO to allocate common expenses using the 'head count' method.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee was directed to appear without adjournment, failing which the CIT(A) could pass appropriate orders.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable in nature and that the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable. The Tribunal followed previous decisions in the assessee's own case and similar cases, which had granted exemption. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order granting exemption was upheld.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeal was to be withdrawn due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.
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 by the tribunal.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claim. The assessee is directed to appear and present their case without seeking adjournments.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The assessee is directed to appear without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue based on facts and law after the assessee's appearance.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case, directing her to appear without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the interest claimed is an ascertained liability and should be allowed as a deduction following the mercantile system of accounting, especially since similar claims were allowed in preceding and succeeding years. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal held that it cannot be denied on individual assets within a block of assets even if not used in a particular year, following the 'block of assets' concept.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to produce ledger accounts to show that sales were accounted for against these credits in subsequent years. If sales were accounted for, the addition under Section 68 would be deleted to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are permissible only if they are based on incriminating material found during the search. In the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable if no exempt income is earned. Keyman insurance premiums and employer-employee insurance are allowable business expenses. Commission paid to one recipient was allowed, but disallowed for another due to lack of evidence. Interest expenditure disallowance was deleted due to availability of sufficient interest-free funds.
The Tribunal held that no capital gains are taxable as there was neither a transfer of a capital asset nor an absolute receipt of any amount, given the High Court's final order declaring the sale deed null and void.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) and substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to produce the directors of the investor companies before the AO. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee an opportunity to produce the directors.
The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's lack of familiarity with tax laws, restored the issue to the AO. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to substantiate her case.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if no exempt income is earned. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s view on depreciation on software and the deletion of pre-operative expenses as a double disallowance.
The ITAT held that interest on delayed TDS payment is not an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1). Regarding consultancy charges, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction only for commission related to payments received by the assessee from customers up to March 31, 2014.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO, finding that the assessee had provided valid reasons for the decline in gross profit rate, such as business promotion activities, increased component costs, reduced selling prices, and lower margins on specific projects. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that there was no tangible reason to reject the books of accounts.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, granting a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO with requisite details.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO failed to conduct sufficient inquiry to reject the assessee's explanation regarding the source of funds. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case and decide on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee is directed to appear without adjournment, failing which the CIT(A) can pass an order as per law.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue afresh after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) is only required to examine the objects of the trust for registration under Section 12AA, not the application of income or past activities. The CIT(E) had gone beyond his mandate by rejecting the application without considering the objects.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the penalty proceedings along with the quantum matter, considering the prayer of the assessee's AR and the lack of objection from the Revenue's DR.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and in the absence of any objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to vacancy allowance for the period the property remained vacant, as per Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. The AO was directed to allow this allowance on the determined ALV.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed in light of the CBDT circular and a coordinate bench's decision on its applicability to pending appeals.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, relying on previous decisions in the assessee's own case and the assessee's strong financial position with sufficient own funds.