Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to provide any evidence or explanation to challenge the estimated income or the additions made by the AO. The assessee also failed to appear for hearings despite repeated notices.
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 held that the CIT's revisionary powers under Section 263 were applicable to the TPO's order as it was part of the assessment. However, it directed the exclusion of one comparable company, Tasty Bites Eatables Ltd., if its related party transactions exceeded the specified limit.
The Tribunal held that the issue of interest on advances to subsidiaries should be set aside to the AO/TPO for reconsideration of evidence regarding whether they were investments or advances. It further held that corporate guarantee fees are not international transactions for the relevant assessment year and that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income was earned, nor should such disallowance be added to book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in remitting the matter of unsecured creditors back to the AO as the CIT(A) does not possess such powers. Considering the need for additional evidence, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the entire appeal back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected the assessee's claim without calling for a report from the Assessing Officer. Therefore, to ensure justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration after providing a hearing opportunity.
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 found that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for hearing, which the assessee failed to utilize. However, considering the assessee's claim of needing to submit additional evidence, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the assessee to seek reinstatement of the appeal if the scheme is not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. 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 allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected.
The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for verification of the evidence submitted by the assessee, such as Pattadar pass book and sale deed, to satisfy the AO about the sources of cash deposits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide details to the revenue authorities despite opportunities. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that while several opportunities were given, the assessee failed to provide details. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration after affording proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it had opted for the "Vivad se Vishwas" scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the 22-day delay, finding it neither wilful nor intentional. The appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide it on merits.
The tribunal held that the assessee could not revise its belated return as per Section 139(5) and that the disallowance of bad debts required further evidence. The issue of bad debts was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal 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 accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal 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 condoned a 4-day delay in filing the appeal due to the health of the company's CMD. The judgment details the AO's observations regarding TDS and registration charges, and the assessee's explanations.