Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 6 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which relied on judicial pronouncements allowing estimation of profit embedded in accommodation entries.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal, following a High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was not favorable.
The Tribunal held that the entire loss pertained solely to the demerged unit and was not attributable to the investment division. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to carry forward the entire loss claimed.
The Tribunal noted that any technical breach in the verification of the appeal could be rectified by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, considering it a reasonable estimation of profit embedded in such transactions.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as it was based on a precedent in the assessee's own case for a prior year. No distinguishing features were presented to deviate from this decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's cash availability for the year was sufficiently documented and explained. The CIT(A) erred in calculating household expenses, leading to an incorrect conclusion about cash availability.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The assessee has the liberty to approach the tribunal for restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to have it restored if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding the Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme. Since the scheme aims to settle disputes, the appeal is considered to be settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict disallowance under Section 14A to the exempt income and confirmed the deletion of adjustments to book profit under Section 115JB. It also upheld the allowance of additional depreciation. The issue of sales and services expenditure was set aside to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed declarations. The assessee requested the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's decision to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the scheme declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn in view of the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the declaration is declared bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal treated the pending appeals as dismissed and withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to have the appeals restored if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as dismissed and withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if the scheme declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed previous binding decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court in similar cases. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee retains the right to seek revival of the appeals if the settlement under the scheme is not successful.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to have it restored if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal found that the dispute could be resolved by examining the corresponding entries in the broker notes and demat holding statements. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to present relevant documents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, following the Punjab & Haryana High Court's ruling that penalty cannot be levied solely on additions made on an estimate basis without concrete evidence of concealment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal accepted the request.
The Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessment under Section 147. It held that the assessee had disclosed all primary facts necessary for assessment, and a mere change of opinion by the AO cannot be a ground for reassessment.
The Tribunal noted that the Vivad Se Vishwas Act provides a mechanism for resolving tax disputes. Considering the assessee's participation in the scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 declaration was not accepted.
Following a Madras High Court decision, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 74, as amended by the Finance Act, 2002, apply only to capital losses incurred from AY 2003-04 onwards. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to set off the long-term capital loss from AY 2001-02 against the short-term capital gains.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court judgment, held that if the assessee opts for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal should be dismissed. The assessee is given liberty to restore the appeal if the decision on their declaration is not favorable.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of incentive and salary payments as fictitious expenses due to lack of evidence. However, the disallowance of staff welfare expenses was deleted as the details were provided.
The Tribunal held that the condition under Section 80AC, requiring the filing of the return of income on or before the due date for claiming deductions under Section 80IC, is mandatory. Therefore, the disallowance of the deduction was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the disputed purchases, finding no infirmity in the order.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was wrongly exercised as the AO had already examined the issue and taken a possible view. The Tribunal also noted that as per Section 43CA(3) and (4), the stamp value as on the date of the agreement should be considered if the agreement and registration dates differ.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request and the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the Act is deemed void.
The Tribunal held that the property remained vacant and was held for letting out, thus its annual value should be computed as per Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal also found that the municipal taxes were indeed paid by the assessee, and the rejection of the set-off claim under Section 143(1) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the actual exempt income of Rs. 13,17,233/-.
The tribunal allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn, in light of the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the Act is deemed void.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Subsequently, as the assessee wished to avail the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is warranted when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee, following the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the quantum of penalty in dispute was below the prescribed threshold limit of Rs. 50 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to restore them if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution is not in their favor.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal in light of opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.