Loading ITAT cases…
124 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal found no merit in keeping the appeals pending until the settlement scheme was finalized. It dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to revive their cases if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.
The tribunal found no merit in the revenue's contentions, noting that the department had not allowed the expenses in the year they accrued or were paid. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd., the tribunal held that such disallowances are revenue-neutral.
The Tribunal restored the issue of penalties back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. This was done because the assessee claimed the demands were no longer valid after reconciliation.
The Tribunal restored the issue of penalties back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. This was done because the assessee claimed the demands were no longer valid after reconciliation.
The Tribunal restored the issue of penalties back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. This was done because the assessee claimed the demands were no longer valid after reconciliation.
The Tribunal restored the issue of penalties back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. This was done because the assessee claimed the demands were no longer valid after reconciliation.
The Tribunal restored the issue of penalties back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. This was done because the assessee claimed the demands were no longer valid after reconciliation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation on assets already put to use. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument and relied on a Madras High Court decision. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was also considered unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A is applicable only when exempt income is earned. Since the assessee had no exempt income, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the penalty order was passed ex parte and, in the interest of justice, remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to furnish an explanation for non-compliance, and the AO was to reconsider the matter.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against a show cause notice is not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the statutory limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if the case fell under any exceptions.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn, acknowledging her decision to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to reinstate if the scheme was not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not properly served on the assessee's wife as the conditions for service on an adult family member were not met. Therefore, the assessment order passed without valid notice is bad in law.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme and the Revenue conceded to the request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested, given their decision to opt for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This was subject to the assessee paying Rs. 1000/- to the PM Care Fund as a condition.
The Tribunal held that the interest-free loan was extended from the assessee's own interest-free funds (capital and reserves), which exceeded the loan amount. Therefore, Section 36(1)(iii) could not be invoked to disallow interest.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This withdrawal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not ultimately resolved, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, this withdrawal was subject to the condition that if the dispute was not ultimately resolved, the assessee could 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 and received Form-3. 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 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, with liberty to reinstate if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee and his counsel showed a lethargic attitude, the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-appearance due to his counsel's guidance. Therefore, the penalty was deleted in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal set aside both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the maintainability of the appeals after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and then decide on merits if maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2009-10, finding the opening cash balance explained. For AY 2010-11, the addition related to opening cash balance was deleted, but the issue of rental deposit was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) is mandatory, even if the assessee does not request it. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw their appeal as per their request, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue's representative also conceded to this request.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue had issued Form-3. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's contention and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It clarified that the assessee could seek revival if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, noting the issuance of Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal was subject to the condition that if the dispute was not ultimately resolved under the scheme, the assessee could seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals, acknowledging their decision to avail the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The Revenue's representative also conceded to this request.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on the savings bank account was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2). It distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Totgar's Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd. and relied on an Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) could not remand the matter to the AO and that the value of the entire property could not be adopted under Section 50C if only a portion was sold. The matter was remitted to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal set aside both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the maintainability of the appeals after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and then decide on merits if maintainable.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the tribunal for reinstatement if the 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected.
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 held that the disallowance of proportionate interest on interest-free advances needs to be recomputed by the AO, considering the availability of own funds. The interest and penalty paid for late TDS payment are not an offence or prohibited by law, hence should be allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2009-10, finding the opening cash balance explained. For AY 2010-11, the addition related to opening cash balance was deleted, but the issue of rental deposit was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, noting the issuance of Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal was subject to the condition that if the dispute was not ultimately resolved under the scheme, the assessee could seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals, acknowledging their decision to avail the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The Revenue's representative also conceded to this request.
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 found that the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs was not appropriate, considering the assessee's financial background and the evidence provided. The AO and CIT(A) did not properly verify the explanation offered by the assessee.
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 held that an inadvertent mistake in raising a claim, especially when arising from an auditor's certificate, does not constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that since the sale deed, which formed the basis of the capital gains addition, was declared null and void by a civil court, the impugned transfer never took place. Consequently, the addition of long-term capital gain was not sustainable.
The tribunal allowed all parties to withdraw their appeals as they had opted to avail the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file miscellaneous petitions if the scheme acceptance failed.
The tribunal allowed all parties to withdraw their appeals as they had opted to avail the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file miscellaneous petitions if the scheme acceptance failed.
The Tribunal held that since Form-3 under the scheme had already been issued, there was no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with a rider.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending until the settlement scheme was finalized would serve no purpose. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.