Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not adequately addressed the assessee's submissions and documentary evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination of the factual veracity of the assessee's claims.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
Following the Madras High Court's precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn, allowing assessees to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and had filed the necessary application. Since no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, following a Madras High Court order on the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Assessees were granted liberty to seek restoration of their appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of non-payment of admitted tax. As the assessee claims to have now paid the admitted tax and is a sick company, the issue needs factual verification.
Following the Madras High Court's precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn, allowing assessees to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution.
Following the Madras High Court's precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn since the assessees chose to resolve their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence in violation of Rule 46A and in not providing the Assessing Officer with adequate opportunity to examine it. The examination by the CIT(A) was found to be inadequate.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to pass an order on the merits of the case and not dismiss it for non-prosecution. The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and unsustainable.
Following the Madras High Court's precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn, allowing assessees to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution.
Following the Madras High Court's precedent, the Tribunal treated these appeals as withdrawn since the assessees chose to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Assessees are granted liberty to restore their appeals if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable.
Following the Madras High Court's precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn, allowing assessees to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution.
Following the Madras High Court's precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn, allowing assessees to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee writes back a provision as no longer required and offers it to income, it cannot claim a deduction for it in the current year based on prior year disallowances. The assessee's claim of double deduction was deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. The addition should be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.
The tribunal held that since the assessee intended to settle the tax litigation under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020', there was no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal followed a Madras High Court order which allowed assessees to withdraw their appeals if they opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome is not favorable.
The Tribunal followed a Madras High Court order which allowed assessees to withdraw their appeals if they opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome is not favorable.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. However, given the grey market purchases, a certain disallowance is necessary to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, following a High Court order on the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Assessees were granted liberty to seek restoration of their appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the regulations by the Medical and Veterinary Councils apply to professionals, not pharmaceutical companies. The distribution of free samples was considered a legitimate business expense for product promotion and efficacy testing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified. A 12.5% disallowance was considered to meet the ends of justice given the circumstances.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, following a Madras High Court order on the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Assessees were granted liberty to seek restoration of their appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved relief due to the availability of interest-free funds. Therefore, the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for factual verification and to grant relief as per the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without reference to any incriminating material found during a search are not sustainable. This is considered a jurisdictional defect, as only pending assessments abate, and unabated assessments cannot be disturbed without such material.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, following a High Court order that allowed assessees to withdraw appeals if they opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Assessees were granted liberty to restore their appeals if the scheme's outcome was not in their favor.