Loading ITAT cases…
662 orders · Page 14 of 14
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings and order were void ab initio as they were initiated against a non-existent entity after amalgamation. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the issue of lease equalization charges and their treatment for book profit computation has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision following these precedents was upheld.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as infructuous, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme. The revenue had no objection to this course of action.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings and order were void ab initio as they were initiated against a non-existent entity after amalgamation. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as infructuous, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme. The revenue had no objection to this course of action.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as infructuous, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme. The revenue had no objection to this course of action.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was bad in law as it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, making a claim not sustainable in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision on identical facts for other assessment years. It held that if the quantum of income itself is under dispute and substantial questions of law have been framed by the High Court, the penalty cannot survive.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision on identical facts for other assessment years. It held that if the quantum of income itself is under dispute and substantial questions of law have been framed by the High Court, the penalty cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not determine the fair market value of the services and that the payment of high salary was not a ruse to avoid dividend tax, as salary is taxed at a higher rate. The CIT(A)'s partial disallowance was also found to be without good reason.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.