Loading ITAT cases…
89 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal as the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application was processed. However, the withdrawal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not verified the actual amount received by the assessee from books of accounts or bank statements. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment after detailed enquiries.
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeal, citing the principles of liberal interpretation and the potential for injustice if the appeal was not heard on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that receivables constitute a separate international transaction following the amendment to Section 92B. However, it directed that the interest rate should be LIBOR + 200 basis points and allowed a credit period of 120 days, modifying the TPO's original determination.
The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to PF and ESI are remitted before the due date of filing the return of income, they are allowable as deductions. The disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), noting that the assessee did not establish the loss as genuine or a business loss. The vehicles were considered capital assets, and depreciation had already been claimed.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done because the tax effect in the appeal was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that no real income accrued to the assessee as no development occurred. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to verify if possession was taken back by the assessee or if the agreement was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that Persistent Systems Ltd. and Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. should be excluded from the list of comparables for software development services. This was due to functional differences and lack of segmental data for comparability.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, all appeals, both by the assessee and the Revenue, were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that a proper opportunity of being heard was not granted. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, all appeals, both of the assessee and the Revenue, were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeals. Since the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals, the issue of delay in filing was not addressed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' plea for another opportunity, despite the revenue's contention of sufficient prior opportunities. The appeals were remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration, with a caution to the assessees to cooperate.
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, acknowledging the medical certificate for the delay.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, all appeals, both by the assessee and the Revenue, were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, all appeals, both by the assessee and the Revenue, were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, all appeals, both by the assessee and the Revenue, were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' plea for another opportunity, despite the revenue's contention of sufficient prior opportunities. The appeals were remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration, with a caution to the assessees to cooperate.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeals. Since the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals, the issue of delay in filing was not addressed.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, all appeals, both by the assessee and the Revenue, were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal, following its decision in the assessee's wife's case, set aside the current appeal to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is to reconsider the appeal in accordance with the law after providing the assessee with a proper hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal agreed that since the quantum appeal was set aside, the penalty order should also be set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the penalty after completing the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act cannot be applied to capital contributions made in kind by a partner to a firm. It reasoned that the consideration for such contributions is indeterminate and that specific provisions like Section 45(3) govern such transactions, which should prevail over general provisions.
The Tribunal found that the TPO did not adopt a specific method for computing ALP for certain transactions. Therefore, the Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal and remitted the disputed issues back to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act cannot be applied to capital contributions made in kind by a partner to a firm. It reasoned that the consideration for such contributions is indeterminate and that specific provisions like Section 45(3) govern such transactions, which should prevail over general provisions.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order regarding the application of Section 50C on the sale of land is confirmed, as the AO had not considered the difference between sale consideration and SRO value. However, the issue of loss on sale of a car was remanded to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the written submissions and passed a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the TPO did not adopt a specific method for computing ALP for certain transactions. Therefore, the Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal and remitted the disputed issues back to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea for another opportunity due to unavoidable circumstances. While noting the revenue's contention of sufficient opportunities, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were not sustainable as the AO did not have any fresh tangible material to reopen the assessment after the initial scrutiny assessment.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) are not sustainable. Consequently, the assessment orders for both assessment years were set aside.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) are not sustainable. Consequently, the assessment orders for both assessment years were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeals for non-appearance without deciding on merits. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeals for non-appearance without deciding on merits. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeals for non-appearance without deciding on merits. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeals for non-appearance without deciding on merits. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration.