Loading ITAT cases…
86 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the change in the nature of business (from colored stones to diamonds) justified the lower GP rate declared by the assessee. It further noted that the purchases were supported by invoices and export documents, and a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case with similar facts deleted the addition.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the successful settlement of the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies only to capital assets. Since agricultural land outside municipal limits is not a capital asset as per Section 2(14), the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not applicable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case which had restored the approval under Section 10(23C)(vi). This earlier order was also upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the dispute.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme to settle the dispute.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of own money received was not justified as the relevant period was not covered by the CESTAT order. The addition on account of interest on margin money was deleted as there was no increase in unsecured loans and inter-corporate deposits, and a similar issue for AY 1996-97 was confirmed by the Rajasthan High Court.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a broad view by accepting the issue of corpus donation after examining evidence. Therefore, the AO's order could not be considered erroneous for lack of inquiry. The CIT(Exemption)'s order was set aside.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted to settle the disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals as the matter had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's son owned up to the entries via an affidavit and the Revenue did not present contrary evidence, the assessee had discharged his onus. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme to settle the matter. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's son owned up to the entries via an affidavit and the Revenue did not present contrary evidence, the assessee had discharged his onus. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals as the matter had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies only to capital assets. Since agricultural land outside municipal limits is not a capital asset as per Section 2(14), the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not applicable.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies only to capital assets. Since agricultural land outside municipal limits is not a capital asset as per Section 2(14), the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not applicable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case which had restored the approval under Section 10(23C)(vi). This earlier order was also upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case which had restored the approval under Section 10(23C)(vi). This earlier order was also upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be levied solely on the basis of a surrender made during search proceedings, especially when the valuation of stock was done at market price and not cost. The notice initiating penalty proceedings was also found to be defective.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration with retrospective effect was invalid, as neither Section 12AA(3) nor Section 12AA(4) of the Act explicitly provides for retrospective operation. The Tribunal also found no change in the assessee's activities to warrant cancellation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a Power of Attorney holder for the sale of the property, which was owned by another individual. Therefore, the capital gain could not be attributed to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10AA should be recomputed considering the additions made by the AO, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case and CBDT Circular No. 37/2016. Other grounds were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order was not time-barred. It also found that since the trust was already registered under Section 12AA as a public trust, the Revenue could not challenge its character as a public trust in the 80G proceedings. However, it noted that the nature of temple activities and expenditure needed examination.