Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 2 of 9
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020'. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court judgment, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement was not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that the Indian representative was an agent of independent status and not a PE, thus the advertisement revenue was not taxable in India. It also ruled that interest under Section 234B was not leviable as the income was subject to TDS.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision, disposed of the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme outcome was not in their favor or if the department did not accept their application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's intention to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was admitted and allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the appeal on a technical ground without providing an opportunity for hearing. The appeal was allowed to be admitted and adjudicated on merits.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution. The ex-parte order was set aside as it was passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and Form 3 is awaited. Following the Madras High Court's decision in M/s. Nannusamy Mohan (HUF), the appeal was disposed of with liberty to the assessee to restore it if the scheme's outcome is not favorable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to acceptance under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision, disposed of the appeals with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme settlement failed or was not accepted. The assessee was to file a miscellaneous application for restoration without a delay condonation application.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal at this stage due to the assessee opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal held that the appeal suffers from low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without going into the merits of the issue.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the preliminary ground of delay. The assessee's conduct did not warrant granting another opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision, disposed of the appeals with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme settlement failed or was not accepted. The assessee was to file a miscellaneous application for restoration without a delay condonation application.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision, disposed of the appeals with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme settlement failed or was not accepted. The assessee was to file a miscellaneous application for restoration without a delay condonation application.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their request to avail the benefits of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it fell below the monetary threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied or the tax effect exceeded the limit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that since the additions/disallowances forming the basis of the penalty were deleted by a co-ordinate bench in the quantum appeal, the penalty proceedings had no foundation. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal rejected the adjournment application and dismissed the appeal. However, the assessee was granted liberty to get the appeal recalled if they did not succeed under the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that section 68 of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked if sums are credited in the assessee's books of account. Since the assessee did not maintain books of account and filed under the presumptive scheme of section 44AD, the addition under section 68 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not clearly specified the charge for levying the penalty and had done so mechanically. Therefore, the penalty order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the declaration made under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' is not accepted.
The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to recompute the ALP by applying a margin of 1.4% as per the DRP's direction. It also ordered the exclusion of 'Excel Infoways Ltd.' from the comparable companies, citing functional dissimilarity and inconsistent financial performance.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on labour charges, finding the AO's estimation to be without basis. It also directed the deletion of addition on purchases from a sister concern after verifying invoices and payment proofs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It relied on a co-ordinate bench's decision for a preceding year with identical facts, which granted the benefit of Section 11 to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was not justified in initiating revision proceedings. The Assessing Officer had conducted necessary verifications, and the issues raised by the Commissioner were either already addressed or not prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to revive them if the VSVS application fails.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was not accepted.
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as they had opted for the VSVS 2020. The assessee was granted liberty to recall the appeal if they did not succeed in the VSVS 2020.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to revive them if the VSVS application fails.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was not justified in invoking section 263 as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Assessing Officer had conducted necessary verifications, and the Commissioner had failed to apply his mind to the undisputed facts.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and withdrawn the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on labour charges, finding the AO's estimation to be without basis. It also directed the deletion of addition on purchases from a sister concern after verifying invoices and payment proofs.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the declaration made under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB can only be imposed on a person on whom a search under Section 132 has been initiated. Since no search was conducted on the assessee, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Both parties agreed that the appeals could be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme settlement faced issues.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Both parties agreed that the appeals could be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme settlement faced issues.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Both parties agreed that the appeals could be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme settlement faced issues.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Both parties agreed that the appeals could be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme settlement faced issues.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is awaiting resolution under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal if the settlement under the scheme faces issues.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The assessee can approach the Tribunal for restoration if the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This dismissal was subject to the assessee's right to revive the appeal if the matter was not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to revival if the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as withdrawn for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application and dismissed the assessee's appeal. This was done in view of a Madras High Court decision, with liberty to recall the appeal if the assessee did not succeed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to seek revival if the Vivad se Vishwas scheme resolution fails.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This indicated a non-application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's petition for withdrawal of the appeal. As the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Departmental Representative did not oppose the prayer, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.