Loading ITAT cases…
222 orders · Page 3 of 5
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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 held that the cash payments were made out of compulsion and commercial expediency due to the labour strike and settlement, and the transactions were genuine. Therefore, the rigours of Section 40A(3) were not applicable.
The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeal, and the Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the VSVS Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's contentions regarding commission payments and examine the furnished evidence.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to consider the evidence filed by the assessee regarding rent payments and deductions under sections 80C and 80D and decide the issues afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' applications for withdrawal. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' applications for withdrawal. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' applications for withdrawal. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' applications for withdrawal. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal, noting that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and the DR had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' applications for withdrawal. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' applications for withdrawal. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the applications and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' applications for withdrawal. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a reasoned order after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the applications and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' applications for withdrawal. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' applications for withdrawal. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessees were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee gets an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the exercise of revisionary power by the Principal Commissioner was bad in law as the Assessing Officer had followed the previous directions and conducted a detailed examination. The Tribunal found no error prejudicial to the revenue in the Assessing Officer's order.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. For the sake of natural justice, the assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal accepted the applications of the assessees. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessees were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's applications for withdrawal. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal accepted the applications of the assessees. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessees were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, accepting the assessee's request. However, it denied the assessee liberty to revive the appeal, stating that conditional withdrawal is not permissible under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment contained factual errors and were not based on correct information. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was without jurisdiction, rendering the subsequent assessment proceedings null and void.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and violated the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal found that the AO mechanically applied Rule 8D without considering the assessee's computation. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to Rs. 2,00,000/- as justified.
The Tribunal found that the AO applied Rule 8D without considering the assessee's method and that disallowance of interest expenditure was not warranted. The disallowance was restricted to Rs. 2,50,000.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and no issues were decided on merits, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to obtain a report from the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) to ascertain the market value of the properties at the time of sale deeds.
The tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this withdrawal.
The Tribunal set aside the 15% profit estimation, directing that net profit be estimated on total purchases by considering the average net profit of the preceding three and subsequent two assessment years. The estimated profits are to be set off against carried forward losses.
The tribunal held that the dismissal on a technical ground violated the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) should have allowed the assessee to rectify the clerical error.