Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and allowed the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains. The issue was set aside to the AO for de novo reconsideration, with an opportunity for a fair hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) estimated the profit percentage without examining prior year profit margins or providing reasons. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for de novo consideration and estimation of income.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside the assessment order for de novo assessment by the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted an opportunity for a fair hearing.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and allowed the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains. The issue was set aside to the AO for de novo reconsideration, with an opportunity for a fair hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual agreement and completion of formalities under the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' appeals to be withdrawn and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the parties' mutual consent due to opting for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the parties' participation in the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and completion of formalities under the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the mutual consent and the completion of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme formalities by both parties.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appellate orders and remanded the cases back to the AO for fresh assessment, ensuring the assessees are given a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appellate orders and remanded the cases back to the AO for fresh assessment, ensuring the assessees are given a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appellate orders and remanded the cases back to the AO for fresh assessment, ensuring the assessees are given a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appellate orders and remanded the cases back to the AO for fresh assessment, ensuring the assessees are given a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the cases back to the AO for fresh assessment, ensuring the assessees are given a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appellate orders and remanded the cases back to the AO for fresh assessment, ensuring the assessees are given a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appellate orders and remanded the cases back to the AO for fresh assessment, ensuring the assessees are given a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appellate orders and remanded the cases back to the AO for fresh assessment, ensuring the assessees are given a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appellate orders and remanded the cases back to the AO for fresh assessment, ensuring the assessees are given a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appellate orders and remanded the cases back to the AO for fresh assessment, ensuring the assessees are given a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had posted the case for hearing multiple times, but the assessee or their representative did not appear. However, to avoid miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, granting the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by remanding the issue back to the AO, as they lack the power to set aside. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh examination due to insufficient evidence regarding the acquisition and use of intangible assets.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing re-examination of certain comparable companies for ITES services and remitting the issue of correct margin computation for specific companies. It also directed that interest on foreign currency receivables should be calculated at LIBOR +.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's claim of now possessing documents to substantiate the source of income, remitted the appeal back to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee is to be given a fair opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by remanding the issue back to the AO, as they lack the power to set aside. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh examination due to insufficient evidence regarding the acquisition and use of intangible assets.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, respectfully following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. This decision had confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80 IB(10).
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, respectfully following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. This decision had confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80 IB(10).
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form-3. The dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessees can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form-3. The dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessees can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte and that a similar issue for earlier years was pending. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for a decision on similar lines as in the earlier years.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide explanations to the AO and CIT(A) earlier, the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal warranted reconsideration. The CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not prepared the income and expenditure statement as the due date for filing returns had not yet passed. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals as the dispute resolution under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was initiated. The dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's books of account and profit margins were unreliable, especially given the prior admission of unaccounted stock. The payments made through banking channels were not conclusive proof of genuine transactions, as cash could have been returned.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals as the dispute resolution under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was initiated. The dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.