Loading ITAT cases…
144 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal corrected the PAN number of the assessee from AFDPK 3120 M to AAQCS 8497 J. This correction was made to accurately reflect the assessee's details in the appeal proceedings.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of disallowances for godown rent and legal expenses, citing the assessee's claim of multiple payees below the TDS threshold. It restricted the disallowance of business expenses to 5% and deleted the disallowance for cash payments.
The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal as per the appellant's instructions. The Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that if the share application money is received from identified shareholders, the department can proceed to reopen their individual assessments. The AO cannot simply treat the amount as undisclosed income of the assessee without establishing it as such.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that if the share application money is received from identified shareholders, the department can proceed to reopen their individual assessments. The AO cannot simply treat the amount as undisclosed income of the assessee without establishing it as such.
The Tribunal held that if the share application money is received from identified shareholders, the department can proceed to reopen their individual assessments. The AO cannot simply treat the amount as undisclosed income of the assessee without establishing it as such.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that if the share application money is received from identified shareholders, the department can proceed to reopen their individual assessments. The AO cannot simply treat the amount as undisclosed income of the assessee without establishing it as such.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed settlement benefits under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not rebut this claim.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to accept the valuation estimated by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the difference in values arose due to the specific method of calculating STT and was not an under-valuation of sales. The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had availed settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's petition regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that the Revenue did not rebut this claim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's alternative contention and restricted the addition to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the assessee's turnover and profit margins. This resulted in a reduced addition compared to the CIT(Appeals) order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the applications based on the manner of application of funds, as this is a matter for assessment proceedings, not for granting registration. The Tribunal found the assessee's activities to be genuine and in consonance with its charitable objects.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the applications based on the manner of application of funds, as this is a matter for assessment proceedings, not for granting registration. The Tribunal found the assessee's activities to be genuine and in consonance with its charitable objects.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction as the issue raised was not part of the limited scrutiny reasons. CBDT circulars restrict AO's inquiry to CASS reasons, making the AO's omission not erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the factual basis for the AO's belief that income had escaped assessment was incorrect. The AO's reasons for reopening were not factually accurate and did not meet the legal requirements for reopening.
The Tribunal held that additions for outstanding liabilities can only be made under Section 41(1) if there is a cessation or remission of liability, which was not established. Similarly, commission expenses were found to be genuine and paid for liaison work, with TDS deducted and agents filing returns.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition made by the AO, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the AO failed to establish that the income accrued to the assessee. The Tribunal also directed deletion of the estimated net profit by the CIT(A) as it was made without rejecting the assessee's books of account.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal decided that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the appeal as the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed with a condition for restoration if the scheme benefits are not availed.
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 move for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circulars enhancing monetary limits for appeals are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal, having a tax effect below the enhanced limit, was to be treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the appeal should be deemed withdrawn due to the opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed with a caveat that it could be restored if the scheme option was not accepted.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that there was no point in keeping it pending since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal because the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can reapply to recall the order if the scheme proposal is not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions related to trade payables, unsecured loans, and unexplained cash credits, finding no material to controvert the CIT(A)'s factual findings. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to verify depreciation claims for AY 2014-15.
The Tribunal held that the issue of applicability of Section 115JB when total income is nil or negative was decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The CIT(A) erred in not following this binding precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions related to trade payables, unsecured loans, and unexplained cash credits, finding no material to controvert the CIT(A)'s factual findings. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to verify depreciation claims for AY 2014-15.
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.
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 due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had settled the dispute 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 compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.