Loading ITAT cases…
492 orders · Page 2 of 10
The Tribunal allowed 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the AO failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Both parties consented to restoring the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's request to restore the issues back to the AO for fresh consideration. Both parties consented to this approach, and the Tribunal clarified it was not opining on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's representative that the matters should be restored to the AO for fresh consideration. Both parties consented to this course of action.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's request to restore the issues back to the AO for fresh consideration. Both parties consented to this approach, and the Tribunal clarified it was not opining on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
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 Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 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 appeal as they had opted to settle the tax arrears 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 by the Tribunal.
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 assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were 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 Senior DR had no objection to this request.
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. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's representative that the cases should be restored to the AO for fresh consideration. Both parties consented to this course of action.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee. This was done with the liberty for the assessee to restore the appeal if the dispute is not settled as per the scheme.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is called for when the employees' contributions to PF/ESI, though delayed, were deposited before the filing of the return of income. This decision followed a coordinate bench's ruling which considered the jurisdictional High Court's judgment favoring the assessee.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed 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 accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal, as the assessee had opted for and deposited the amount under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the Revenue to seek revival if the scheme resolution fails.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.