Loading ITAT cases…
210 orders · Page 1 of 5
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal held that if investments were made from non-interest-bearing funds, Section 14A would not apply and remitted the matter to the AO for verification. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal found that the AO had not examined whether the subsidiary's business was predominantly money lending and remitted the matter for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, stating that keeping it pending would serve no purpose. The assessee can seek revival if settlement benefits are denied for technical reasons.
The tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending until the settlement scheme was finalized would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting it was due to circumstances beyond the assessees' control. It directed the CIT(E) to re-examine the issue of registration afresh, considering the material provided by the assessees. The Tribunal also clarified that the mutuality principle does not apply if registration as a charitable activity is sought.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, dismissing them as withdrawn. It clarified that if the scheme is not accepted by the Revenue, the assessees can file miscellaneous petitions to reinstate their appeals.
The tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending until the settlement scheme was finalized would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending until the settlement scheme was finalized would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending until the settlement scheme was finalized would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting it was due to circumstances beyond the assessees' control. It directed the CIT(E) to re-examine the issue of registration afresh, considering the material provided by the assessees. The Tribunal also clarified that the mutuality principle does not apply if registration as a charitable activity is sought.
The Tribunal held that no purpose would be served by keeping the appeals pending as Form-3 had already been issued. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty to revive them if the settlement benefit was denied.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to reinstate if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it to be beyond the assessee's control. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal, considering the substantial additions and the submission of fresh evidence, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The AO was directed to examine the additional evidence and pass an order accordingly.
The Tribunal held that since Form(s)-3 under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme has been issued, there is no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending until the settlement scheme was finalized would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending until the settlement scheme was finalized would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting it was due to circumstances beyond the assessees' control. It directed the CIT(E) to re-examine the issue of registration afresh, considering the material provided by the assessees. The Tribunal also clarified that the mutuality principle does not apply if registration as a charitable activity is sought.
The tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending until the settlement scheme was finalized would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as the settlement scheme was in operation. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as the settlement scheme was in operation. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to reinstate if the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that since Form-3 was issued, there was no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty to revive them if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal held that if investments were made from non-interest-bearing funds, Section 14A would not apply and remitted the matter to the AO for verification. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal found that the AO had not examined whether the subsidiary's business was predominantly money lending and remitted the matter for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, dismissing it as withdrawn. It clarified that the assessee can seek reinstatement if their case is not accepted under the Vivad-Se-Viswas scheme.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it to be beyond the assessee's control. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that if the Vivad-se-Vishwas scheme is not accepted, the assessee can seek reinstatement of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if the case fell under exceptions.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, stating that keeping it pending would serve no purpose. The assessee can seek revival if settlement is denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Revenue had no objection. The assessee was granted liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn because the assessee chose to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee retains the liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was pursuing settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to revive if settlement benefits are denied.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the assessee was provided sufficient opportunities. However, considering the nature of the addition and in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.
The tribunal held that income derived by a non-resident for services performed outside India accrues outside India and cannot be taxed in India as per Section 5(2) of the Act. The impugned addition was deleted based on this reasoning.
The Tribunal followed its own Special Bench decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. This decision held that income from mushroom production is agricultural income and not business income.
The tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending until the settlement scheme was finalized would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn, acknowledging their decision to avail the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to reinstate if the scheme's acceptance failed.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive assessment was remitted, the protective assessment in the assessee's case also needed to be remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The tribunal was requested by the Revenue to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the settlement scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with a condition for revival if the settlement benefit was denied.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to participate in the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme's acceptance by the Revenue failed.
The Tribunal set aside all issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This was done in accordance with a coordinate bench's decision for a similar assessment year.
The Tribunal set aside all issues to the file of the AO for de novo consideration. This was based on a previous order of a coordinate bench for a similar assessment year.
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 sale of lands was not necessarily business income and directed a re-examination of the interest component of loans. Additions related to unexplained cash credits were confirmed, while revision orders under Section 263 were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking revision powers as the Assessing Officer had already rejected the assessee's books and estimated profits. Therefore, Section 40A(3) disallowance was not applicable, and the subsequent assessment proceedings were also quashed.
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 is rejected.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal to be withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected.