Loading ITAT cases…
40 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C is void ab initio because no books of account or other documents, including bank statements, were seized during the search and requisition proceedings. Therefore, these documents could not have been handed over to the AO of the assessee, which is a mandatory requirement for invoking Section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C is void ab initio because no books of account or other documents, including bank statements, were seized during the search and requisition proceedings. Therefore, these documents could not have been handed over to the AO of the assessee, which is a mandatory requirement for invoking Section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C is void ab initio because no books of account or other documents, including bank statements, were seized during the search and requisition proceedings. Therefore, these documents could not have been handed over to the AO of the assessee, which is a mandatory requirement for invoking Section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C is void ab initio because no books of account or other documents, including bank statements, were seized during the search and requisition proceedings. Therefore, these documents could not have been handed over to the AO of the assessee, which is a mandatory requirement for invoking Section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C is void ab initio because no books of account or other documents, including bank statements, were seized during the search and requisition proceedings. Therefore, these documents could not have been handed over to the AO of the assessee, which is a mandatory requirement for invoking Section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C is void ab initio because no books of account or other documents, including bank statements, were seized during the search and requisition proceedings. Therefore, these documents could not have been handed over to the AO of the assessee, which is a mandatory requirement for invoking Section 153C.
The Tribunal held that suspicion alone is not enough to deny exemption; evidence and proof are required. The AO's reliance on an investigation report without corroboration was insufficient to prove the transactions were bogus.
The Tribunal held that suspicion alone is not enough to deny exemption; evidence and proof are required. The AO's reliance on an investigation report without corroboration was insufficient to prove the transactions were bogus.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was covered by previous ITAT orders in its own case, and the Revenue's grounds of appeal were largely unsubstantiated. The CIT(A)'s deletions of additions made by the AO were found to be correct.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of sufficient cause. Subsequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal then permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their application.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was covered by previous ITAT orders in its own case, and the Revenue's grounds of appeal were largely unsubstantiated. The CIT(A)'s deletions of additions made by the AO were found to be correct.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of sufficient cause. Subsequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal due to the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme certificate. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was issued. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals is applicable to pending appeals, not just future ones. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had maintained the name and address of the donors, which is the primary requirement under Section 115BBC(3). Since no other particulars were prescribed, the donations could not be treated as anonymous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had maintained the name and address of the donors, which is the primary requirement under Section 115BBC(3). Since no other particulars were prescribed, the donations could not be treated as anonymous.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was issued. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals due to a certificate issued under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The stay application was also dismissed as infructuous.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT (Exemption). The matter was restored to the CIT's file for fresh consideration after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as their grievance against the consequential assessment order was settled. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.