Loading ITAT cases…
204 orders · Page 3 of 5
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the certificate.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 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 held that disallowing the entire purchases was not justified. It restricted the addition to 15% of the gross profit on the unverifiable purchases, following its own prior decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the amounts were not received or had been treated as security deposits not taxable in the year under appeal. The Tribunal also noted the assessee followed the Project Completion Method for income recognition.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and intended to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn, with a caveat for restoration if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that no proportionate interest disallowance was warranted as the assessee had sufficient own funds and had not earned exempt income. Similarly, advances to subsidiaries were considered commercially expedient and funded by own resources. Disallowances on advertising were restricted to 2%, and staff welfare expenses were allowed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that monitoring fees paid to a bank for a loan facility qualify as 'interest' under Section 2(28A) of the Act and are deductible. The loss on interest rate hedging was also held to be allowable as business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance on statements of entry operators was incorrect as the assessee was not linked to the groups mentioned in those statements, and the operators had subsequently retracted their statements. Furthermore, the assessee had provided all requested documents in response to notices under Section 133(6), establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the AO did not provide a proper opportunity to the assessee. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals. Following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance under Section 14A and Rule 8D, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s directions for re-computation based on jurisdictional High Court pronouncements. The assessee's grounds related to disallowance calculations and leave encashment were also dismissed.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
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, 2020.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
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 permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the non-service of notices constituted a sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed due to the low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
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 seek restoration if issues arise with the scheme's certificate.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's compliance with the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme requirements.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee's compliance with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the assessee having complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and obtained a certificate from the Designated Authority.
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 held that the issuance of a valid notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for framing an assessment under Section 143(3). Since no such notice was issued by the assessing officer with proper jurisdiction, the assessment order was deemed null and void.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee was a developer of infrastructure facilities and not merely a works contractor. Previous tribunal rulings in the assessee's own case supported this view.
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. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
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. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The Tribunal held that while the interest income itself may not be eligible for deduction under Section 80IC, it should be treated as a business receipt if the facts support the assessee's claim that the FDs were maintained for business purposes. The issue of netting the interest income was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error and rectified the assessment year in its order. The assessment year was corrected to 2011-12 as intended.
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 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 assessee's application to withdraw the appeal was granted as they had settled the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that an FIR was filed after the CIT(Appeals)'s order. It set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 had been issued. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to keep the appeals pending.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The order was passed with a caveat that if the scheme proposal is not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the order.