Loading ITAT cases…
238 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek reinstatement if the scheme's benefit was not accepted for the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect, citing CBDT circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration. The penalty appeal was also remitted back to the AO for adjudication based on the outcome of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. It was clarified that the assessees could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their Vivad Se Vishwas applications were rejected.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting the assessee's intention to avail the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme and the Revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration. The penalty appeal was also remitted back to the AO for adjudication based on the outcome of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity, considering the circumstances. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the deduction as the provision for bad and doubtful debts was debited to the Profit & Loss Account. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Pr. CIT and remanded the issue to the file of the CIT. The CIT was directed to re-issue notice to the legal heir and provide a fair opportunity of hearing before deciding the issue.
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 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 found that Section 194LA is not attracted to payments made for agricultural land. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration, providing one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the revenue's contention that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the AO to consider the appeal afresh and provide one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument about the assessee's non-appearance, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument about the assessee's non-appearance, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the matter back to the AO to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. While acknowledging the AO and CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh consideration, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the revenue's argument about non-appearance, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the revenue's argument about non-appearance, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's cross-objection. Both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present documentary evidence to the AO. Both issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without affording a proper opportunity to the assessees. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary activity was conducting clinical trials on human beings, which involved administering drugs and analyzing reactions. This activity, while using computers, was not considered 'data processing' in the context of Section 10B, as the data was generated by the assessee's own research and not provided by clients for processing.
The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's submission that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that it did not receive notice for remand proceedings before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the appeal afresh after providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without affording a proper opportunity to the assessees. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without affording a proper opportunity to the assessees. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 12AA registration back to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear with supportive material and was granted three opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without confirming service of notice. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had denied registration based on non-filing of documents. However, considering the assessee's plea and in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that they were not properly heard and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not furnished sufficient evidence earlier and the CIT(A) failed to admit additional evidence or obtain a remand report. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not furnished sufficient evidence earlier and the CIT(A) failed to admit additional evidence or obtain a remand report. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not furnished sufficient evidence earlier and the CIT(A) failed to admit additional evidence or obtain a remand report. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the gifts received from the sister were not unbelievable given her financial position and that the sister had confirmed the gifts. Therefore, the additions made under Section 68 were inappropriate.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) also failed to pass a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the gifts received from the sister were not unbelievable given her financial position and that the sister had confirmed the gifts. Therefore, the additions made under Section 68 were inappropriate.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs for distribution rights and Rs. 14,01,000/- for sundry creditors. However, it deleted the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs related to promissory notes, finding that the source of these loans belonged to third parties. The addition for borrowals and interest was restricted to the interest component, with a direction for telescoping benefit.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not furnished sufficient evidence earlier and the CIT(A) failed to admit additional evidence or obtain a remand report. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs for distribution rights and Rs. 14,01,000/- for sundry creditors. However, it deleted the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs related to promissory notes, finding that the source of these loans belonged to third parties. The addition for borrowals and interest was restricted to the interest component, with a direction for telescoping benefit.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs for distribution rights and Rs. 14,01,000/- for sundry creditors. However, it deleted the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs related to promissory notes, finding that the source of these loans belonged to third parties. The addition for borrowals and interest was restricted to the interest component, with a direction for telescoping benefit.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs for distribution rights and Rs. 14,01,000/- for sundry creditors. However, it deleted the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs related to promissory notes, finding that the source of these loans belonged to third parties. The addition for borrowals and interest was restricted to the interest component, with a direction for telescoping benefit.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the condition that the assessee can seek revival of the case if the settlement benefit is denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's precarious financial position and in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, granting one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme and the Revenue had no objection. The assessee was granted liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary activity was conducting clinical trials on human beings, which involved administering drugs and analyzing reactions. This activity, while using computers, was not considered 'data processing' in the context of Section 10B, as the data was generated by the assessee's own research and not provided by clients for processing.