Loading ITAT cases…
492 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. Therefore, as per Section 4(2) of the Act, the appeal is deemed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as there was no evidence of a notice under Section 143(2) being issued to the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in quashing the reassessment order.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow the deduction for leave encashment on an actual payment basis. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case. A cost of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on the assessee for their negligence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence (invoices/documents) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing them earlier. The CIT(A) had also verified the expenses before allowing them.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 17,34,797/- as the assessee followed the accrual method of accounting and the amount was offered in a subsequent year. The Tribunal also upheld the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) and the subsequent deletion of the share capital addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence (invoices/documents) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing them earlier. The CIT(A) had also verified the expenses before allowing them.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case, considering the lack of vital details in the AO's order.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should be restricted to the extent of the exempt income actually received by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Furthermore, the addition on merits was not sustained due to lack of evidence and the fact that the alleged loss was insignificant compared to the overall assessed loss.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not grant sufficient opportunity to the assessee and that the assessee claimed no deduction under Section 35(2AB). Therefore, the addition made by the AO was erroneous.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and the absence of objection from the Department. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which formed the basis of the penalty, had been restored to the CIT(A) by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the penalty appeal was also set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after the quantum addition is finalized.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not properly considered the material on record and the existing 12AA registration. It directed the CIT to verify the documents and grant 80G benefits if the conditions were met, after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not properly reply to the CIT's queries and failed to produce books of accounts. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT for fresh examination after the assessee complies with the queries and produces the necessary documents.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
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.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was done without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer, relying on reasons recorded in other cases. Therefore, the reopening was quashed as invalid.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act by passing an ex-parte order without deciding on merits. The tribunal also noted the violation of principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for property tax and bank interest on the foreign rental income, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order on this point. Regarding the loan, the Tribunal directed deletion of the addition for USD 10,000 but remanded the issue of USD 5,000 for further verification by the AO.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the Tribunal itself. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) had no basis and was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be judicious. The assessee's claim of ignorance of tax laws was not accepted, and the partial relief granted by the CIT(A) was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal dismissed the 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.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal, following its own previous orders in the assessee's own case for other assessment years, held that the CIT(A) was not justified in taking a contrary stand. The AO was directed to charge tax at the normal rates.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal, which argued that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio as the notice under Section 148 was issued to a company that had already been struck off from the ROC records and was non-existent. The Tribunal found this to be a legal issue going to the root of the matter.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts due to unverified transactions and the estimation of gross profit at 2% of gross sales. The assessee's inability to provide comparative data for wholesalers was noted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied the withdrawal of the suo moto disallowance as no exempt income was earned. It relied on High Court decisions stating that appellate authorities can consider claims raised for the first time without a revised return if facts are on record.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of alleged interest on delayed receivables was unwarranted, considering the business model and the impact of receivables on working capital. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to delete this addition.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was no longer aggrieved by the Pr. CIT's order as the subsequent assessment order was favorable. The assessee requested the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn, and the revenue did not object.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify if the written-off advances were indeed accounted for in computing the assessee's income in the relevant or earlier assessment years. If verified, no disallowance would be made.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred by treating the assessee as a trader and including the FOB value of goods in the cost base. The assessee is a service provider with limited risk, entitled to assured returns, and the AO's approach disregarded its functional profile.
The Tribunal found the ad-hoc disallowance to be on the higher side, especially since sales were not doubted. Considering the assessee's agreement to a reasonable disallowance due to verification issues, the Tribunal reduced it further.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the asset was correctly treated as work-in-progress and later a capital asset, not stock-in-trade. The interest income was also correctly deleted as it was contingent on arbitration proceedings and offered in a subsequent year.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the assessee.