Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 5 of 10
The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and the revenue's appeals as withdrawn. This dismissal was subject to the condition that if the matter was not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, both parties would have the liberty to seek restoration of their appeals.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The condition allows for the revival of the appeal if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that the AO's method of estimating rental income at 8% of the property value was not in accordance with judicial principles. The assessee's approach of offering rent based on municipal valuation was deemed correct.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal found that it was not evident if the assessee received the notice from the CIT(A). Therefore, a reasonable opportunity of being heard was not granted. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek revival of the appeal if the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had offered the amount of Rs. 93.81 Lacs to tax in a subsequent financial year by writing back the sundry balances. Since the amount was already taxed and there would be no loss to the revenue, the addition was deleted to avoid double taxation.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeals as disposed of as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal, following a similar order from the Madras High Court, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn because the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision under the scheme was not in their favor.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the matter was not resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to revive them if the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the department had issued Form-3 as acknowledgment. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue became infructuous.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's withdrawal request due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration is deemed void.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue's right to revive the appeal was protected if the matter was not resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Citing a Madras High Court decision, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to seek restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to seek restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal, following a similar order from the Madras High Court, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn, noting the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the scheme's outcome was not favorable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals 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 acknowledged that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal must be withdrawn. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following the Bombay High Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The High Court had held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable when there is no exempt income, and Section 194H is not applicable for principal-to-principal transactions.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn in light of the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the declaration under the scheme is declared bad in law.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is an accommodation entry provider, only the commission income earned on such transactions should be taxed, not the entire credit amount. This was based on various High Court and Tribunal decisions in similar cases.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to revive it if the VSVS declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal restored the issue of export of finished goods to the AO for fresh adjudication, following a co-ordinate bench's decision. For intra-group services, the Tribunal deleted the adjustment made by the AO, finding the method adopted unsustainable.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the Act is deemed void.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a co-ordinate bench ruling on similar facts. The Tribunal noted that the investment income was offered to tax and taxed as business income, making the disallowance of interest unjustified.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's first ground as not arising from the CIT(A)'s order. It upheld the AO's addition for marketing expenses, thereby allowing the Revenue's second ground. The third ground, concerning the exclusion of certain expenses from export turnover, was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that ESOP benefits are covered under 'other similar remuneration' in Article 15 of the India-UAE DTAA. However, taxability depends on where the employment services were exercised, and the assessee's claim for treaty protection was rejected.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made if the assessee has not claimed any expenses in the computation of total income. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the disallowance was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus regarding share capital. It also found that the disallowance under Section 14A was made without any incriminating material. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the discrepancies were mere typographical errors with no impact on the profit and loss account or computation of income. The AO erred in rejecting the books of accounts and making additions without substantial defects.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be brought to tax. The Tribunal followed the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a co-ordinate bench ruling on similar facts. The Tribunal noted that the investment income was offered to tax and taxed as business income, making the disallowance of interest unjustified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections against the reopening of assessment by a speaking order is a mandatory condition and a fatal flaw. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the reassessment order was quashed.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal. However, the assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the appeal if the declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not filed or not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and considered the evidence before making the estimation. The Pr. CIT's disagreement with the estimation was not a sufficient ground to invoke Section 263, especially when the AO had taken a possible view.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision, held that the appeals should be disposed of as withdrawn since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the outcome of the scheme was not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that the exclusion of agricultural income and gains from the sale of agricultural land from book profit is an apparent mistake, as these incomes are exempt under Section 10(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) could have directed the AO to rectify this mistake.
The Tribunal followed a previous order in the assessee's own case and directed the Assessing Officer to make an addition at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation, as per the books of accounts, is eligible for reduction in book profit computation under Section 115JB each year until it is fully wiped out by profits. Previous adjustments do not preclude its availability in subsequent years if it remains in the books.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was the year of search, penalty should have been levied under Section 271AAA, not Section 271(1)(c). Section 271AAA(3) explicitly states that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) shall be imposed for undisclosed income in the specified previous year.
The Tribunal treated the appeals as dismissed and withdrawn in view of the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the declaration under the scheme is declared bad in law.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to revive it if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement was not finalized for unforeseen reasons.