Loading ITAT cases…
210 orders · Page 2 of 5
The tribunal held that there was no merit in keeping the appeals pending while the settlement scheme was in operation. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
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The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal to be withdrawn.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.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not fully substantiated all sale instances of the alleged crop. Therefore, a lumpsum agricultural income credit of Rs. 10 lakhs was allowed out of the disallowed amount.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be withdrawn by the assessees. The assessees were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their '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 scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The assessees were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to reinstate if the scheme application was rejected.
The tribunal considered the assessee's request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee had no further grievance as relief was granted by the CIT (Appeals).
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending until the settlement scheme is finalized would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that there was no merit in keeping the appeals pending while the settlement scheme was in operation. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that there was no merit in keeping the appeals pending while the settlement scheme was in operation. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that there was no merit in keeping the appeals pending while the settlement scheme was in operation. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if the Vivad se Vishwas scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to refile if the scheme is not accepted by the Revenue.
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 there was no merit in keeping the appeals pending while the settlement scheme was in operation. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
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 allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to refile if the scheme is not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, stating that keeping them pending would serve no purpose as the settlement process was underway. The assessee was given the liberty to revive the cases if settlement benefits were denied.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to refile the appeals if their case was not accepted under the scheme.
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 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 allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to refile the appeals if their case was not accepted under the scheme.
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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it was filed under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to participate in the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be withdrawn by the assessees. The assessees were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to participate in the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee retains the liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek reinstatement 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, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to appear and produce supporting documents, with the CIT(A) to provide three effective opportunities.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities' stand disallowing additional depreciation was without merit. Citing a Madras High Court decision, the Tribunal found that additional depreciation claimed on assets already put to use was acceptable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order under Section 154 was illegal and void as it went beyond the scope of limited scrutiny and attempted to review the assessment. Rectification powers cannot be used to cure lapses in the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that normal civil structures like the chimney and bag-house cannot be treated as a specialized structure forming part of the plant and are only entitled to 10% depreciation as per IT Rules. The matter was remitted to the AO for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to appear and produce supporting documents, with the CIT(A) to provide three effective opportunities.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the matter to the DVO to determine the cost of acquisition and market value of the properties. The SRO value cannot be accepted as market value without expert verification.
The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained cash deposits to the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's telescoping plea. For the expenditure claim, an 8% lumpsum disallowance was deemed appropriate instead of 12%.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal to be withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if the Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (Form No. 26AS) showing the transaction as a purchase and remanded the issue to the AO for de novo consideration. The AO is to re-assess the case if the transaction is confirmed as a purchase.
The Tribunal was informed that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the Revenue requested the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal was informed that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue requested the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal was informed that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue requested the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal was informed that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue requested the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased person is invalid. Consequently, any assessment order passed based on such an invalid notice is not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed Form 10CCB and the books of account during the assessment proceedings. The AO should have considered these documents before disallowing the deduction. The CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that LIC premiums paid from a joint account are eligible for deduction under Section 80C if claimed by the assessee. It also held that the cash found was likely from substantial withdrawals from the bank for which the source was not in doubt.
The Revenue requested to withdraw the appeal as the assessee sought to settle the case under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal with a condition for potential revival.