Loading ITAT cases…
128 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the delayed filing and emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. However, since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the department issued Form No. 3, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessee having opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and submitted the necessary form.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessee having opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and submitted the necessary form.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals. This decision was based on the assessee having opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and submitted the necessary form.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and had completed the necessary formalities. The Revenue had no objection.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was deemed withdrawn upon issuance of the certificate under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the penalty on the addition of Rs. 8,30,000/- was not sustainable as the AO failed to disprove the assessee's explanation and evidence. However, the penalty on additions of Rs. 2,79,000/- and Rs. 10,05,301/- was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's finding that the assessee failed to submit the source of cash deposits and the AO did not make proper investigation was not borne out by the records. The AO had considered the assessee's explanation and evidence regarding agricultural produce as the source of cash deposits.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.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 Assessing Officer's assessment order lacked proper inquiry and application of mind, making it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Pr. CIT's order setting aside the assessment for fresh examination was upheld.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.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 condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investments and sundry creditors, as the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investments and sundry creditors, as the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investments and sundry creditors, as the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investments and sundry creditors, as the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investments and sundry creditors, as the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus.
The Tribunal found that the valuation of the property by the DVO and AO did not adequately consider the impact of illegal occupation, which reduced the market value. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh determination of the fair market value.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 12A(2), registration and approval should be effective from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which the application is made. The CIT(E) has no discretion to defer this date.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 12A(2), registration and approval should be effective from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which the application is made. The CIT(E) has no discretion to defer this date.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence, finding reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance due to the bank taking over the factory. The Tribunal found no infirmity in admitting the evidence in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 399 days, finding the assessee's explanation to be reasonable. The appeal was then remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of the GP rate lacked a rational basis, especially considering the substantial increase in turnover and the explanation for the lower GP rate. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's remand report had accepted the assessee's trading results. Therefore, the trading addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
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 held that the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) was allowable based on its own previous order, and the Pr. CIT's finding to the contrary was set aside. However, the Pr. CIT's finding regarding the allowability of various provisions was upheld, requiring further inquiry by the AO.