Loading ITAT cases…
222 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal granted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme requirements.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if issues arose with the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if issues arose with the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the assessee settling the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal granted the permission sought by the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal due to compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to restore it if issues arose with the certificate.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of a certificate by the Designated Authority.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The tribunal granted the permission for withdrawal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals, acknowledging their compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if issues arose with the certificate issuance.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal after noting compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals, acknowledging their compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if issues arose with the certificate issuance.
The tribunal held that the NCLT order approving the resolution plan is binding on the Income Tax Department, overriding any pending appeals or disputes. Consequently, the revenue's appeal could not be pursued further.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as it was based solely on third-party information without independent verification or opportunity for cross-examination. The assessee had discharged her onus by providing documentary evidence of the purchase.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The impugned order was vacated and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's mobile medical vans, owned and operated by the assessee, qualify as a hospital or an institution providing medical services. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiae).
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. It was held that the rectification of the challan defect did not constitute a delay in filing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's mobile medical vans, owned and operated by the assessee, qualify as a hospital or an institution providing medical services. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiae).
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) ought to have disposed of the appeal as per Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires a reasoned written order. Since the CIT(A) did not provide details of notice issuance and the assessee claimed non-receipt, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission and the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's application and compliance with the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to recall the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal restored the issue of corporate guarantee fee to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination. Regarding the DDT, the Tribunal followed a precedent and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification in light of the DTAA provisions.
The tribunal allowed the Rs. 1,00,000/- contribution to the school as staff welfare expenses, citing consistency and the benefit to employees' children. The entry tax issue was remanded to the AO for verification of actual payment and allowability under Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that the evidence, including development agreements and payments made through cheques, was sufficient to prove the incurring of development expenditure. It also found that the notice to the developer was issued belatedly, and no adverse inference could be drawn.
The Tribunal found an error in the CIT(A)'s calculation of disallowance for business promotion expenses and remanded two specific expenses for verification. The issue of inflated purchases was set aside and remanded to the AO for proper inquiry due to procedural lapses by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Pr. Commissioner's exercise of revisionary powers under Section 263 was bad in law. This was because the Assessing Officer had followed the directions of the Pr. CIT and taken a possible view, and the revisionary order was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the CBDT's policy decision to reduce litigation by increasing monetary limits for appeals. Since the tax effect was below the revised limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals before the Tribunal, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the policy decision of the Department as laid down in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on the assessee's compliance with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's compliance with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arose with the scheme's certificate.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, considering the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee's compliance with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of a certificate by the Designated Authority.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on the assessee's compliance with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.