Loading ITAT cases…
662 orders · Page 4 of 14
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 held that the sales tax demand pertaining to FY 1971-72, finalized in AY 2008-09, was not allowable as a deduction in AY 2010-11, but directed its allowance in AY 2009-10. The disallowance of statutory taxes amounting to Rs. 83,755 was deleted as the payments were made during the year.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the VSV Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the excess application of income in earlier years, representing excess expenditure over income, should be allowed to be adjusted against income in subsequent years. This was based on previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case and a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the VSV Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the VSV Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding potential prejudice from the Vivad se Vishwas settlement and the request to restore the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted this request.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn/not pressed. This was based on CBDT circulars that set a monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal, which the current appeal's tax effect fell below.
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 based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted to settle the tax dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
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 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 in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeals as they had opted to settle the tax disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted to settle the tax disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request in the absence of any objection from the Revenue.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that losses arising from chit fund transactions are allowable deductions if the funds were raised for business purposes and utilized in the business. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of these facts.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to decide afresh after identifying the legal heir and providing an opportunity of hearing. The AO was also directed to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment.
The Tribunal held that once a settlement certificate under the Vivad se Vishwas Act was issued, the Assessing Officer should not have proceeded with the final assessment. The final assessment order was quashed as it contravened the provisions of the VSV Act.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C before passing the final assessment order rendered the assessment without jurisdiction. This followed the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in JCB India Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being initiated. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent from the record in the penalty order that could be rectified under Section 154. The pendency of quantum appeal proceedings does not automatically render a penalty order erroneous. The appeal against the Section 154 order was found to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable in the hands of the assessee. Since the seized document was categorically owned by the assessee's son, who was also searched at the same premises and had provided an explanation, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee.
The assessee informed the tribunal that the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and sought to withdraw the appeal. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that additions made based solely on statements recorded during assessment proceedings, without incriminating material found during search, are not sustainable, especially when the assessment was already concluded. The Tribunal also considered the purchase dates of vehicles.
The Tribunal held that additions made based solely on statements recorded during assessment proceedings, without incriminating material found during search, are not sustainable, especially when the assessment was already concluded. The Tribunal also considered the purchase dates of vehicles.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the notice initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions made based solely on statements recorded during assessment proceedings, without incriminating material found during search, are not sustainable, especially when the assessment was already concluded. The Tribunal also considered the purchase dates of vehicles.
The Tribunal held that losses arising from chit fund transactions are allowable deductions if the funds were raised for business purposes and utilized in the business. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of these facts.
The Tribunal held that if working capital adjustment is made, it subsumes the interest on receivables, and no separate benchmarking is required. The addition made on account of interest on receivables could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the notice initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The assessee failed to provide necessary details like PAN and complete addresses for parties involved in cash purchases, and notices sent to these parties were returned undelivered, thus identity was not proved.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in the sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's appeal was dismissed due to non-appearance and lack of contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that additions made based solely on statements recorded during assessment proceedings, without incriminating material found during search, are not sustainable, especially when the assessment was already concluded. The Tribunal also considered the purchase dates of vehicles.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case on merit before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that training charges were included in the sale price of offshore equipment and thus taxable in India. However, the issue of defect liability and liquidated damages required further examination by the AO.