Loading ITAT cases…
109 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the deposit as past savings and current year's income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The assessee requested that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn due to opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants by providing sufficient documentary evidence and personal appearances. The AO failed to point out any specific defect or discrepancy in the evidence furnished by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not dismiss an appeal without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper service of notice.
The tribunal granted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the appeal being settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had paid the due taxes under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(DR) had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the cash found was out of past savings and the addition was not warranted. Regarding jewellery, it was held that the quantity found was within the limits prescribed by CBDT circulars and past declarations, thus the addition was unjustified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the tax dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Since the tax arrears were settled, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue's representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Since the assessee had paid the due taxes under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the impugned order under section 263 had not been given effect to by the Assessing Officer, and thus no fresh tax liability arose. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for recall if an assessment order was later found to have been passed.
The assessee filed an application stating that the dispute has been settled with the Department under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Therefore, the assessee requested the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding the segmentation of profitability for the purchase of raw materials, following previous decisions. It also allowed the ground related to administrative and IT support services, finding them to be beneficial and not stewardship functions, based on High Court rulings.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding the segmentation of profitability for the purchase of raw materials, following previous decisions. It also allowed the ground related to administrative and IT support services, finding them to be beneficial and not stewardship functions, based on High Court rulings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's ground regarding the ex-parte order. Therefore, all issues were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication with a proper opportunity to be heard.
The ITAT found that the CIT(Appeals) order was not a speaking order as it did not discuss the issues on merit. The Tribunal restored all issues to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to pass a speaking order after verifying the assessee's details.
The ITAT set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and cooperate with the CIT(A) for a reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Since the dispute was resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a settlement order was issued, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication, finding that the assessee likely did not receive a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without considering the assessee's submissions and without providing sufficient opportunity. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) made an inadvertent mistake by dismissing the wrong appeal. The tribunal directed the CIT(Appeals) to correct the order, dismiss the AY 2019-20 appeal, and restore the AY 2016-17 appeal for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the entire credit was not sustainable as undisclosed income, an addition to cover the peak credit balance and other unexplained deposits was justified. The remaining additions were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the due taxes, leading to the dismissal of earlier appeals. Therefore, the instant appeal was also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the reasons provided and the Supreme Court's exclusion period for limitation. It found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and lacking in reasoning.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and paid taxes, requesting withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to file a miscellaneous application if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the fact that the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2020' was successfully opted for, with full tax arrears paid. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities failed to appreciate the nature of the transactions, which were primarily purchases or refunds. The Tribunal found that the AO's approach of making additions based solely on Form 26AS without cross-verification from the concerned parties was unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the taxes. As there was no objection from the Revenue, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Since the taxes were paid, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the assessee did not get a chance to present its case. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants, who had utilized loans from another company (M/s. Tobu Engineering Ltd.) for the investment. The creditworthiness of M/s. Tobu Engineering Ltd. was also accepted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAB can only be invoked if a search has been initiated on the premises of the assessee. Since the search was not on the assessee's premises, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it upheld the PCIT's order, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the claimed loss on stock valuation before the PCIT, making the original assessment erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement (September 1, 2011) should be considered, as part of the consideration was paid before the agreement date. Therefore, no addition was warranted under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal if further verification revealed exceptions to the circular or a higher tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the ITAT had previously quashed the assessment order passed under section 153A due to a lack of incriminating material found during a search. Since the foundation of the assessment order was extinguished, the Commissioner could not assume jurisdiction under section 263.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw its appeal due to the merger. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the claim regarding interest on car loan and allowed the ground for statistical purposes. For donation and subscription expenses, 10% of the amount was sustained as disallowance, and the rest was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had indeed sent notices to an incorrect address, leading to an ex-parte order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Limited, holding that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. The amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, was held not to be retrospective for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was resolved under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the Department had issued the necessary declaration. Therefore, there was no reason to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as academic, noting that no additions were made by the Assessing Officer and the assessee did not appear. Adjudicating the reopening grounds was deemed unnecessary without further details from the assessee.