Loading ITAT cases…
75 orders · Page 1 of 2
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with a condition. The appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is rejected by the authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The CIT(A) found that the seller's VAT returns reflected the transactions, payments were made by cheque, and the inspector's report was based on a verification conducted long after the transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, stating the AO's disallowance was arbitrary.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the additional depreciation claim by not following the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional ITAT and other ITAT benches. The Tribunal followed the precedents set by various ITAT benches.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was indeed below ₹50 lakh. Therefore, in accordance with the CBDT circular, the appeal was to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for taking loans in cash due to financial stringency and the necessity of timely payments to workers. The transactions were genuine, and the violation was technical.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with the condition that it would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is not approved by the authorities.
The ITAT held that dismissing an appeal without adjudicating on merits, especially when the assessee did not appear, violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a defective show cause notice, which does not specify the charge for penalty, makes the levy of penalty unsustainable in law. The revenue's request for remand was rejected as they failed to make out a specific case for it.
The Tribunal held that a defective show cause notice, which does not specify the charge for penalty, makes the levy of penalty unsustainable in law. The revenue's request for remand was rejected as they failed to make out a specific case for it.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that they could be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Viswas Scheme' was not accepted by the competent authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that they could be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Viswas Scheme' was not accepted by the competent authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that they could be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Viswas Scheme' was not accepted by the competent authorities.
The tribunal held that passing an ex-parte order without deciding on merits is not permissible. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal held that the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) without disposing of the case on merits was not permissible and violated principles of natural justice. Both parties agreed to restore the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner erred in revising the assessment without verifying the facts. Since VAT was not routed through the profit and loss account and not claimed as a deduction, Section 43B was not applicable, and the revision order was bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and made additions based on surmises, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received for surrendering tenancy rights constitutes a capital asset, and its transfer results in capital gains taxable under the head 'Capital Gains'. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the classification of income and the eligibility for deductions.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that they could be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Viswas Scheme' was not accepted by the competent authorities.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the ultimate tax liability is determined on the basis of book profit under Section 115JB, even if there were additions under normal provisions. The change in charge from furnishing inaccurate numbers to concealment of income was also noted as a defect.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the revenue. The assessee's request was based on the relief granted by the Assessing Officer in a subsequent order.
The Tribunal restored the assessee's grievances back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. This was done because the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte and the assessee's claim of non-service of notice was not controverted.
The Tribunal held that a defective show cause notice, which does not specify the charge for penalty, makes the levy of penalty unsustainable in law. The revenue's request for remand was rejected as they failed to make out a specific case for it.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition for Railways Punitive charges, finding them to be compensatory in nature and allowable as per previous decisions. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of disallowance as no exempt income was earned, and also found errors in the AO's computation for any potential disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the ALP determined in the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) should be applied to the international transactions for the assessment years under appeal, as the factual matrix and functional profile were identical. The Assessing Officer was directed to adopt the ALP determined in the APA.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest was not justified because the lender companies had been assessed to tax, their existence was proven by scrutiny assessments, and loan confirmations were provided. Previous assessment orders for the assessee had also accepted these loans and interest payments.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order regarding the depreciation claim, finding that the assessee had capitalized the expenditure and the jurisdictional High Court's decision on re-plantation was not directly applicable. However, the Tribunal found the revision on interest income to be bad in law, as it was covered by a previous decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal with the condition that it could be restored if the Vivad Se Vishwas application was not accepted by the department.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiry and the CSR expenses were incurred in accordance with government guidelines and were incidental to the business. The amendment to Section 37(1) regarding CSR expenses was prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening was based on 'reason to suspect' rather than 'reason to believe', which is insufficient for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147. Furthermore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order on the grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiry and the CSR expenses were incurred in accordance with government guidelines and were incidental to the business. The amendment to Section 37(1) regarding CSR expenses was prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the ALP determined in the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) should be applied to the international transactions for the assessment years under appeal, as the factual matrix and functional profile were identical. The Assessing Officer was directed to adopt the ALP determined in the APA.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the ALP determined in the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) should be applied to the international transactions for the assessment years under appeal, as the factual matrix and functional profile were identical. The Assessing Officer was directed to adopt the ALP determined in the APA.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest was not justified because the lender companies had been assessed to tax, their existence was proven by scrutiny assessments, and loan confirmations were provided. Previous assessment orders for the assessee had also accepted these loans and interest payments.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not consider the relevant documents, leading to an ex parte order. For the ends of justice, the issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration with an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is not approved by the authorities.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and consider all evidence.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench concerning the same assessee. The previous decision had upheld the deletion of a similar addition, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment after four years without any allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly is bad in law. The Assessing Officer failed to satisfy the statutory preconditions for assuming jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limits for departmental appeals, as per CBDT circulars, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision order was bad in law because the AO had made proper inquiries and accepted the genuineness of the transactions based on available evidence. The Pr. CIT's revision was based on suspicion and general allegations without specific material against the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision order was bad in law because the AO had made proper inquiries and accepted the genuineness of the transactions based on available evidence. The Pr. CIT's revision was based on suspicion and general allegations without specific material against the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision order was bad in law because the AO had made proper inquiries and accepted the genuineness of the transactions based on available evidence. The Pr. CIT's revision was based on suspicion and general allegations without specific material against the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision order was bad in law because the AO had made proper inquiries and accepted the genuineness of the transactions based on available evidence. The Pr. CIT's revision was based on suspicion and general allegations without specific material against the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision order was bad in law because the AO had made proper inquiries and accepted the genuineness of the transactions based on available evidence. The Pr. CIT's revision was based on suspicion and general allegations without specific material against the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision order was bad in law because the AO had made proper inquiries and accepted the genuineness of the transactions based on available evidence. The Pr. CIT's revision was based on suspicion and general allegations without specific material against the assessees.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeals with the protection that the Revenue can seek restoration if the assessees' applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme are not accepted.
The Tribunal held that notional interest cannot be levied when interest has not been actually accrued or recorded in the books of account. It also upheld the assessee's claim for writing off irrecoverable principal loan amounts as bad debts, following its own previous decisions.