Loading ITAT cases…
124 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessees' contention that the appeals should be kept pending. It held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeals pending and dismissed them as withdrawn.
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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with a rider.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 dismissed the appeal for AY 2012-13, upholding the estimated income based on previous years' orders and the assessee's agreement during assessment. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal remanded the issues of Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance and miscellaneous expenses back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
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 Therefore, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessees' contention and dismissed all appeals as withdrawn. However, it clarified that assessees could seek revival of their cases if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.
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 for reinstatement if the Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the appeal afresh after providing one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.
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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file miscellaneous petitions if the scheme acceptance failed.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessees' contention and dismissed all appeals as withdrawn. However, it clarified that assessees could seek revival of their cases if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessees' contention and dismissed all appeals as withdrawn. However, it clarified that assessees could seek revival of their cases if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessees' contention and dismissed all appeals as withdrawn. However, it clarified that assessees could seek revival of their cases if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessees' contention and dismissed all appeals as withdrawn. However, it clarified that assessees could seek revival of their cases if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessees' contention and dismissed all appeals as withdrawn. However, it clarified that assessees could seek revival of their cases if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.
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.
The Tribunal held that the bank liability was discharged by the assessee as part of the sale consideration, and therefore, it should not be reduced from the net worth. The net worth was correctly computed by the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2012-13, upholding the estimated income based on previous years' orders and the assessee's agreement during assessment. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal remanded the issues of Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance and miscellaneous expenses back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
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 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 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 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 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 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.