Loading ITAT cases…
595 orders · Page 9 of 12
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received orders in Form No. 5 for full and final settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeals were allowed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal followed its previous decisions in favour of the assessee, noting that the Revenue had not presented any new material to distinguish the current case. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's order, which upheld the AO's action. The AO's rejection of the DVO's valuation and reliance on the assessee's stated cost of construction was deemed justified.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational addition was deleted, the consequential penalty must also fall. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable if the amount was not credited in the previous year, and restored the issue of disallowing business expenses to the AO for verification of genuineness. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable if the amount was not credited in the previous year, and restored the issue of disallowing business expenses to the AO for verification of genuineness. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding on merits. Considering the possibility of unintentional lapses by the assessee, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal as the dispute was resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The designated authority had issued Form 5, confirming the settlement.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to settlement under the Direct Tax VSV Scheme.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments from Finance Act, 2021, were considered to resolve the controversy.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a proper inquiry and accepted the assessee's explanations. The PCIT's direction to re-assess was considered erroneous as there was no basis to deem the AO's order prejudicial to revenue, especially since the PCIT did not specify what further inquiries were required.
The Tribunal held that the delay condonation letter was not supported by any evidence and the assessee failed to properly explain the delay. Therefore, the appeal was not admissible.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 due to the low tax effect. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings are void ab initio and bad in law due to the non-service of the mandatory notice under Section 148. Since the Revenue could not prove service of the notice in accordance with law, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that penalty for charity/donation was not justified as no satisfaction was formed for any default under Section 271(1)(c). Regarding Section 80IC, the Tribunal found that the disallowance was based on an interpretation of 'derived from' and did not per se amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, thus cancelling the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous and treated as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. This was because the matter in issue had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and a Form No. 5 was issued accepting the assessee's declaration for full and final settlement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's purchases were supported by substantial documentary evidence and that the denial of cross-examination of Shri Bhatia violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the additions based on Shri Bhatia's statement were unjustified.
The Tribunal held that Section 11(5) specifies the permissible modes for investing or depositing accumulated income. Even if 85% of income is applied for charitable purposes, any accumulated income must be invested in modes specified under Section 11(5) to claim exemption. Violation of Section 13(1)(d) leads to denial of exemption.
The Tribunal held that the appeal is not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 due to the low tax effect. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere with the addition. The Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) had valued the property at Rs. 12.86 crores, which was higher than the stamp duty value, and the assessee failed to point out any defects in the DVO's valuation.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the disallowance of car expenses was made without proper justification and reasoning. Similarly, the issue of TDS credit was not adjudicated by the lower authorities. Therefore, both issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to set aside a penalty order and direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under a different section, as per Section 251(1)(b) of the IT Act. The direction issued by the CIT(A) was deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme's benefits for bonafide reasons.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the fact that the issues involved had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the consultancy fees paid were for introducing a client and constituted a normal business payment to an intermediary, not 'Fees for technical services'. The CIT(A) failed to apply the cited precedents correctly.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. This was based on the moratorium order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) preventing further proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. This was based on the moratorium order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) preventing further proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided one more opportunity to the assessee to appear and defend its case. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.