Loading ITAT cases…
118 orders · Page 3 of 3
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.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 request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.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 request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to treat the appeal and cross-objection as withdrawn. This was based on the successful settlement of the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted ledger accounts showing the non-claim of expenditure by the school for the first time. Therefore, these accounts needed verification by the AO. The matter was set aside to the AO for verification and decision as per law.
The Tribunal noted that the stamp duty value was reassessed twice and the assessee's sale consideration was Rs. 23,00,000/-. The issue revolves around the correct valuation of the property for capital gains and Section 54 purposes.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme to settle the matter.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.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 request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee had voluntarily waived all rights to pursue the appeal.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee declared better trading results compared to the previous year, and the AO did not detect any defects in the books of account, no addition should be made. The Tribunal relied on its previous decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that since no additions were made under Section 69 for the purchase of land, the Assessing Officer could not make additions under Section 68 for other transactions. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case, considering the claim of non-receipt of notices and the appellate order.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.