Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 3 of 9
The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing a Madras High Court decision. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the appeal if their Vivad Se Vishvas settlement was unsuccessful.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The departmental representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
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Se Vishwas Scheme and the Departmental Representative did not oppose the prayer, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to revival if the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as withdrawn for want of prosecution.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 dismissed the assessee's appeal as infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was also dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the advances considered by the AO were primarily receivables from statutory authorities (VAT, service tax, TDS, income tax refunds) and not capital advances to sister concerns. Therefore, the disallowance of proportionate interest was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to discharge the initial onus to prove the transactions were not genuine. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, and the revenue's investigation was not carried forward sufficiently.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application and dismissed the assessee's appeal. This was done in line with a Madras High Court decision, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if they did not succeed under the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Tribunal found it fit and proper to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020 requires related appeals to be withdrawn once a matter is resolved under it. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the assessee's prayer.
The tribunal rejected the adjournment application and dismissed both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections. This was done in light of a Madras High Court decision, with liberty to recall if the assessee did not succeed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment application. Following a High Court decision, the tribunal dismissed the appeal with liberty to recall it if the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme did not succeed.
The assessee's counsel informed the Tribunal that a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, had been filed and the appeal would be withdrawn upon final resolution. The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to discharge the initial onus to prove the transactions were not genuine. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, and the revenue's investigation was not carried forward sufficiently.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek restoration if the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to the condition that the assessee can seek restoration of the appeal if the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition. The assessee has the liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment request and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. This was done in view of a High Court decision, with liberty for the Revenue to seek recall if the assessee fails under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application and dismissed the assessee's appeal. This was done in line with a Madras High Court decision, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if they did not succeed under the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had provided some evidence, there were still doubts regarding the allocation of income and expenses and the substantiation of agricultural activities. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for further verification.
The tribunal rejected the adjournment application and dismissed the assessee's appeal. This was done in line with a High Court decision, with liberty granted to recall the appeal if the assessee does not succeed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal rejected the adjournment application and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to recall the appeal if they did not succeed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing substantial evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The AO failed to bring any concrete material to prove the transactions were non-genuine, and the lack of cross-examination of individuals whose statements were relied upon was a critical deficiency.
The tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment application. Following a High Court decision, the tribunal dismissed the appeal with liberty to recall it if the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme did not succeed.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowed interest expense should not have been added back to short-term capital loss. Instead, the income from other sources should be assessed at the net figure after considering allowed interest expenses.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the settlement faced unforeseen issues.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek revival if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had substantially fulfilled the requirements for weighted deduction. The Tribunal relied on a previous ITAT ruling in a similar case (Meco Instruments Pvt. Ltd.) where procedural technicalities did not bar the deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, finding bonafides in the assessee's explanation. The appeal was admitted for hearing on merits, with the assessee intending to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the application under the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' fails.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the declaration was considered void by the Department.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the application under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as per the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the Vivad Se Vishwas Act provides a mechanism for resolving tax disputes. Following precedent, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to seek restoration if the declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This dismissal was subject to the condition that if the matter was not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the assessee could seek restoration of the appeal.
The tribunal rejected the adjournment request and dismissed the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to have the appeal recalled if they did not succeed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, following a Madras High Court decision. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme declaration was not in their favor.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's matter was pending resolution under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal if issues arise with the settlement.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the settlement under the scheme faced unforeseen issues.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to revive it if the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' application fails.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if there is no receipt of exempted income. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted based on Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal followed its previous orders for similar assessment years and directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 8% of the alleged bogus purchases, acknowledging the profit element embedded in such transactions.
The Tribunal held that the management service fees received by the assessee do not fall under the definition of royalty as per Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. The services rendered did not involve imparting of know-how or transfer of knowledge, skill, or experience.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Tribunal considered the position and decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to approach for restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement fails.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the settlement under the scheme failed.