Loading ITAT cases…
43 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and the assessment orders were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The revisionary proceedings were quashed, and the original assessment orders were restored.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were void ab initio due to a defective notice issued under Section 271AAA, which did not specify the charges. Furthermore, on merits, the assessee was entitled to relief as the excess depreciation was admitted during search, the manner of derivation was substantiated, and no tax was payable due to losses.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and the assessment orders were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The revisionary proceedings were quashed, and the original assessment orders were restored.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and the assessment orders were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The revisionary proceedings were quashed, and the original assessment orders were restored.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were void ab initio due to a defective notice issued under Section 271AAA, which did not specify the charges. Furthermore, on merits, the assessee was entitled to relief as the excess depreciation was admitted during search, the manner of derivation was substantiated, and no tax was payable due to losses.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and the assessment orders were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The revisionary proceedings were quashed, and the original assessment orders were restored.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and the assessment orders were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The revisionary proceedings were quashed, and the original assessment orders were restored.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and the assessment orders were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The revisionary proceedings were quashed, and the original assessment orders were restored.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made due enquiries and verified the facts, including bank statements and details of receipts. The Pr. CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal and it cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal found that all grounds raised in the present appeal were covered by a previous order dated 30.07.2018. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee intended to pursue the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It clarified that the assessees are free to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted by the revenue.
The CIT(A) thoroughly examined the documentary evidence filed by the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness of lenders, and genuineness of transactions. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered various documents and case laws before deleting the additions.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It clarified that the assessees are free to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted by the revenue.
The CIT(A) thoroughly examined the documentary evidence filed by the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness of lenders, and genuineness of transactions. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered various documents and case laws before deleting the additions.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It clarified that the assessees are free to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn by the assessee. The assessee was permitted to file a recall application if their application under the scheme was not accepted or if they were unable to participate in the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn by the assessee. The assessee was permitted to file a recall application if their application under the scheme was not accepted or if they were unable to participate in the scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It clarified that the assessees are free to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It clarified that the assessees are free to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that disallowing the interest payment would result in double taxation as TDS was already deducted by the payee companies. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of an addition on account of short-term capital gains, as the amount was already offered to tax by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue. Assessees were permitted to file recall applications if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected by the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal on a technical ground, especially when the assessee had filed separate appeals and cooperated. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessee. The assessee is free to file a recall application if their application under the scheme is not accepted or if they are unable to participate in the scheme.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessee. The assessee is free to file a recall application if their application under the scheme is not accepted or if they are unable to participate in the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable because the 'tax effect' was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The case did not fall under any exceptions for organized tax evasion.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and did not pass a reasoned order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal on a technical ground, especially when the assessee had filed separate appeals and cooperated. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed on this ground.
The CIT(A) thoroughly examined the documentary evidence filed by the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness of lenders, and genuineness of transactions. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered various documents and case laws before deleting the additions.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It clarified that the assessees are free to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted by the revenue.