Loading ITAT cases…
204 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that since the revenue from the transactions was considered, the corresponding expenditure should also be accounted for. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee did not receive proper notices. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal quashed the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) because the notice issued for penalty levy did not specify the charge. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's rulings on similar technical defects in penalty notices.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had previously estimated GP at 3% in similar cases. Considering the consistency and the assessee's declared GP of 2.4%, the Tribunal directed the GP to be estimated at 3% of the turnover.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the reasons recorded for reopening did not contain any allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts, which is a mandatory condition for reopening beyond four years under the proviso to Section 147.
The Tribunal held that even if a company does not carry on business, it must incur expenses to maintain its establishment and discharge legal obligations while it is in operation. Therefore, the expenses claimed by the assessee were allowable.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per the revised monetary limits issued by the CBDT. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if issues arose with the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per the revised monetary limits issued by the CBDT. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arose with the scheme's certificate.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's request and the no objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, acknowledging their compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This decision 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, acknowledging their compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the certificate.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the head of income and taxability of income from the sale of flats had already been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2015-16. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's order, which was in consonance with the Tribunal's view, could not be considered erroneous.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, dismissing it as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if issues arose with the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notices from the CIT(A), constituting a sufficient cause for non-compliance. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order also lacked the required format. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The assessees were allowed to withdraw their appeals.