Loading ITAT cases…
109 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and paid the tax. Therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lacs, which is below the threshold stipulated by CBDT circular No. 17/2019.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The order was passed with a caveat that the assessee could apply for recalling if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had been issued Form 3. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was given liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals, considering their decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees' participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form 3 by the Department.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and Form 3 was issued. Therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the issuance of Form 3, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. They found no failure to make necessary enquiries regarding Section 69C, and the AO's view was plausible.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. They found no failure to make necessary enquiries regarding Section 69C, and the AO's view was plausible.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. They found no failure to make necessary enquiries regarding Section 69C, and the AO's view was plausible.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted adequate opportunity and that notices were not served. Therefore, both the assessment and appellate orders were ex parte.
The Tribunal has rectified a typographical error in the appellant's PAN number as it appeared in the title of the original order. The corrected PAN number is now explicitly stated.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. They found no failure to make necessary enquiries regarding Section 69C, and the AO's view was plausible.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. They found no failure to make necessary enquiries regarding Section 69C, and the AO's view was plausible.
The Tribunal held that the absence of Form 3CL or a late recognition date for the R&D unit does not automatically disentitle the assessee to the deduction under Section 35(2AB). The AO erred in disallowing the claim solely on these grounds.
The Tribunal held that the omission of the word 'cess' from Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, implies its exclusion from the disallowance provision. Therefore, education cess is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1).
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with a specific condition. The appeal would be restored if the authorities do not approve the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.
The tribunal allowed the deduction for establishment expenses as they were incurred for business purposes. Regarding alleged undisclosed interest income, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication due to lack of evidence from the revenue.
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-2020' is not approved by the authorities.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a proper inquiry and accepted the assessee's claim based on available evidence. The PCIT's revision order was quashed as it lacked specific findings of error and prejudice to revenue, and was based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence against the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO needs to verify the nature of the receivables, particularly whether the grant received for construction is revenue or capital in nature.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's exercise of revisionary power under Section 263 was bad in law. It was found that the AO had made inquiries and the Pr. CIT's satisfaction for invoking Section 263 was not justified based on the case law cited.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the scheme's acceptance by the competent authority.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT must specifically point out errors prejudicial to revenue and cannot set aside an assessment order based on general observations or suspicion. Inadequate enquiry is not a ground for revision under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the 15% accumulation for exemption under Section 11 should be calculated on gross receipts, following previous decisions. It also allowed the claim for accumulation under Section 11(2) as Form 10B was filed and the purpose was considered sufficiently stated, referencing High Court judgments.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and Form 3 was issued. Therefore, there was no need to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal, following its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case, held that the interest of justice would be met by estimating gross profit at 6% of gross receipts. The assessee would be entitled to deductions for interest on capital and partner's remuneration from this estimated gross profit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and Form 3 had been issued. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the revenue's appeal. Considering the assessee's opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the issuance of Form 3, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and Form 3 had been issued. Therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and Form 3 was issued. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to keep the appeals pending.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and Form 3 was issued. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to keep the appeals pending.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with the condition that it would be restored if the Vivad Se Vishwas application was not approved by the authorities.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and Form 3 was issued. Therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the scheme's acceptance by the competent authority.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and Form 3 had been issued. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that it was no longer necessary to keep the appeal pending. The withdrawal is conditional on the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme proposal being accepted.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, considering their participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the scheme's acceptance by the competent authority.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can move to recall the order if the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions and, in the interest of justice, granted an opportunity to present the case before the Assessing Officer. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to set-off of losses against income determined under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE for assessment years prior to 2017-18, following a CBDT Circular. Other grounds were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment requires reliable material, and in this case, the belief was based on incorrect information. Since the alleged reason for reopening was factually wrong and did not lead to any additions, the reopening was unjustified.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to set-off of losses against income determined under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE for assessment years prior to 2017-18, following a CBDT Circular. Other grounds were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, rendering the appeal infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the Revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted an inquiry into the CSR expenses and accepted the assessee's claim, taking a possible view. The Pr. CIT's direction to allow only expenses directly benefiting the assessee was found to be against established legal principles.