Loading ITAT cases…
460 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness of the lender, and genuineness of the transaction, including the purpose, mode of payment, and repayment. Therefore, no addition under Section 68 was warranted.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessees.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the order was passed ex parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. Since no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessees.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessees.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Since Form No. 5 was issued to the assessee under the scheme, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessees.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without any new tangible material coming into the possession of the AO after the original assessment. The reasons recorded by the AO were found to be contrary to the facts on record, as the information relied upon was already available during the original assessment.