Loading ITAT cases…
470 orders · Page 2 of 10
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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 dismissal of the 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 appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and lacked a nexus with any material on record. The Tribunal found that the reasons did not specify the nature of the accommodation entry or the entities involved, rendering the reopening invalid.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 found that the CIT(A) should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to file a condonation of delay application, especially considering the medical treatment. The CIT(A) should have then considered this application sympathetically before deciding the appeal on merits.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as they had become infructuous 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 as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce parties for verification and that confirmations were not properly verified. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on a protective basis in AY 2013-14 after verifying that the income was assessed substantively in AY 2012-13. The addition was not sustainable as the income was already taxed in the correct year.
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 penalty proceedings were vitiated due to procedural irregularities, including an improperly issued show cause notice and inconsistencies in the charges. The AO's satisfaction for penalty was recorded after the show cause notice was issued, and the notice itself lacked specificity.
The Tribunal held that amortization of goodwill and non-compete fees should be treated as non-operating expenses and excluded from the operating margin calculation. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on the purchase of medical equipment, finding the TPO's NIL valuation arbitrary.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenses incurred prior to April 1, 2015, are allowable as revenue expenditure. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A), as the first appellate authority, had not addressed the specific issue of the disallowance of the business loss. Therefore, the case needed to be remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on this matter.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the AO had allowed the claim for a prior assessment year after the matter was restored by the Tribunal, making the addition in the current year was unjustified. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a coordinate bench ruling that interest on delayed EDC payments is revenue expenditure and not penal. It also noted that the project was completed and sold in earlier years, so the interest could not form part of work-in-progress.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision where it held that dues to the Income-tax Department were permanently extinguished as per the NCLT's resolution plan. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by adjudicating the present appeals.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision where it held that dues to the Income-tax Department were permanently extinguished as per the NCLT's resolution plan. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by adjudicating the present appeals.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were not sustainable because the AO issued a vague and ambiguous notice, failing to specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that when income is assessed under MAT provisions, penalty cannot be imposed on additions made under normal provisions.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench decision, restricted the rate of commission on accommodation entries to 0.50% of the sale transaction. This was done to put an end to litigation and in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision where it held that dues to the Income-tax Department were permanently extinguished as per the NCLT's resolution plan. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by adjudicating the present appeals.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance on account of interest expenditure, finding it unsustainable given the assessee's substantial reserves and lack of fresh investments. However, the disallowance on account of administrative expenses was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the addition based on Form 26AS without proper inquiry from the deductor was not justified and set aside the issue for fresh assessment. Regarding the PF/ESI contributions, the Tribunal held that since the amounts were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance was incorrect.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. To ensure justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to comply promptly.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's opting for the Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case, considering the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to appear without adjournment.
The Tribunal held that disallowance on account of interest expenditure was not warranted as the loans were for specific business purposes and not used for investments. However, it ruled that investment in subsidiary companies should be included for disallowance calculations.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) was wrongly invoked and confirmed. The payment of higher salary to directors was considered a commercial expediency and a business decision of the company.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate the agricultural income. The assessee was directed to appear without adjournment.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without delving into the merits of the grounds raised.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to rebut the Assessing Officer's objections. The Tribunal also noted the consistent allowance of the deduction in prior and subsequent assessment years.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vishwas Scheme, 2020.