Loading ITAT cases…
133 tribunal orders from the Guwahati bench in 2020.
Showing 40 of 133 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to recall the order if the scheme authorities did not accept their declaration.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the condition that if the scheme proposal is not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the order.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the condition that if the scheme proposal is not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the order.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not warranted. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmations and invoices, to establish the genuineness of the trade credits, even though the AO's notices were not served or responded to.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance for payments to Scheduled Tribes, citing their exemption from tax. For payments to non-tribals, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if the payees had included these receipts in their income computation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and there is no point in keeping the appeal pending. Therefore, the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which was accepted by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme would resolve the matter. The assessee was granted liberty to recall the order if the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee intended to opt for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The withdrawal is subject to the scheme's acceptance by the competent authority.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had completed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme process. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that reimbursement of expenses cannot be treated as income. It acknowledged the assessee's difficult circumstances during pregnancy and the potential for erroneous advice, leading to incorrect filing.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, considering the assessee's intention to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is conditional on the scheme's acceptance.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals, noting that there was no point in keeping the appeals pending given their decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were granted liberty to move for recalling the order if their scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) without issuing a valid notice under Section 143(2) by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is legally unsustainable and therefore quashed. The mandatory requirement of issuing a valid notice under Section 143(2) was not cured by the assessee's participation in the proceedings.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals, noting that there was no point in keeping the appeals pending given their decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were granted liberty to move for recalling the order if their scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that keeping it pending would be pointless given the intention to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The order was passed with a caveat that the assessee could apply for recalling if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals, noting that keeping them pending would be pointless given the assessee's intention to utilize the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they were opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This withdrawal is subject to the competent authority accepting the assessee's proposal under the scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was opted for. The assessee can recall the order if the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the scheme's acceptance by the competent authority.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals, noting that there was no point in keeping them pending. The withdrawal was granted with a caveat that if the scheme proposal was not accepted, the assessees could move for recalling the order.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals, noting that there was no point in keeping them pending. The withdrawal was granted with a caveat that if the scheme proposal was not accepted, the assessees could move for recalling the order.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that keeping it pending would be pointless given the intention to use the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the scheme's acceptance and the assessee's continued intent.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals, noting that there was no point in keeping them pending. The withdrawal was granted with a caveat that if the scheme proposal was not accepted, the assessees could move for recalling the order.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals, noting that there was no point in keeping them pending. The withdrawal was granted with a caveat that if the scheme proposal was not accepted, the assessees could move for recalling the order.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee was opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal was subject to the condition that if the scheme proposal was not accepted, the assessee could apply for recalling the order.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee was opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, considering the assessee's intention to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was given liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee was opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on borrowed funds, capital subsidy, and equity, when inextricably linked to the setting up and construction of the project, should be treated as a capital receipt. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court ruling in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on borrowed funds, capital subsidy, and equity, when inextricably linked to the setting up and construction of the project, should be treated as a capital receipt. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court ruling in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on borrowed funds, capital subsidy, and equity, when inextricably linked to the setting up and construction of the project, should be treated as a capital receipt. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court ruling in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals.
The Tribunal held that the fixed deposit was made to obtain credit facilities linked to the assessee's business. Therefore, the interest income could be considered business income eligible for deduction under Section 80IC. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.