Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 9 of 10
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was liable to be set aside for fresh consideration. The Pr. CIT was directed to examine the issues afresh after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive it if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme application failed.
The Tribunal held that a suo motu disallowance by the assessee cannot be sustained if it is not permissible in law. The CIT(A)'s enhancement was found to be unsustainable and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme application fails.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3 from the Revenue. Accepting the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had successfully opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested to withdraw the appeal. Accepting this request, the tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's application under VSVS was accepted and Form-3 was issued. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's application under the VSVS scheme was accepted and Form-3 was issued by the Department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted and Form-3 was issued. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.
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 held that the set off of losses cannot be declined solely because the assessment for the year in which the loss was incurred is still pending. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the set off claim for the time being.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and wished to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per the 'Viwad se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had addressed legal issues, they had not dealt with the merits of the assessee's objections regarding the land's deficiencies. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a de novo consideration, directing them to address the objections on merits and consider the applicability of Section 50C to the transfer of development rights.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no merit in the Assessing Officer's denial of exemption. It concluded that the assessee's activities were not commercial in nature to the extent that they would disentitle it from exemption under Section 11, especially considering its status as a government entity.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee's activities were not commercial in nature on a large scale and did not fall foul of the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals to avail the benefits of the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The Department had no objection to this withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee's activities were not commercial in nature on a large scale and did not fall foul of the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the scheme application failed.
The Tribunal held that the set off of losses cannot be declined solely because the assessment for the year in which the loss was incurred is still pending. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the set off claim for the time being.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the scheme declarations failed.
The Tribunal held that the set off of losses cannot be declined solely because the assessment for the year in which the loss was incurred is still pending. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the set off claim for the time being.
The Tribunal held that the set off of losses cannot be declined solely because the assessment for the year in which the loss was incurred is still pending. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the set off claim for the time being.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the scheme application failed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), noting that the difference between the agreement value and the DVO's valuation was less than 10% of the DVO's valuation. The Tribunal also found that the stamp duty value was not the prevailing market price.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. It held that restricting the addition to the gross profit rate was a fair estimate of profit earned from bogus purchases, as the sale turnover was not disputed.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record dissatisfaction for the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee. It also noted that in the assessee's own case for previous years, the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A was not warranted as investments were made out of own funds.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's withdrawal letter and the fact that the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was opted for. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's withdrawal letter and the lack of objection from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) enhanced the income without giving a proper opportunity to the assessee and decided the issue ex-parte. For natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal held that the rent received for the terrace space used for installing antennas is income from house property, as the space is part of the building. Consequently, deductions under Section 24(a) are admissible.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly confronted the assessee with queries and that crucial documents submitted by the assessee had not been examined. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for re-computation of gains, considering the reassessment for AY 2012-13, to provide the available relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim the interest expenditure as the property was offered for possession, evidence of commercial activity was presented, and the premises were put to use during the year.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and wished to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to seek restoration if the matter is not settled under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. This was in line with a Madras High Court ruling on similar circumstances.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication denovo. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case and make submissions before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that dividend income is exempt under Section 10(34) and cannot be taxed under Section 11. It also found that the assessee had not underutilized the accumulated income and directed the AO to recompute the amounts set apart.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to verify the genuineness of the share transactions, making the assessment order erroneous. The PCIT's order to set aside the assessment and direct a fresh assessment was upheld, but a specific direction to disallow the exemption was expunged.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the correct procedure for currency conversion for income computation is as per Rule 115(1) and not the rate used for TDS. It also agreed that service tax should be excluded from gross receipts for Section 44BB computation, following previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO to refer the case to the TPO was vitiated in law due to the lack of pending proceedings and the mandatory approval. Therefore, any subsequent legal consequences flowing from this invalid reference cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the tax rate applicable to domestic companies is not applicable to the assessee under the India-France tax treaty. It also held that interest paid by Indian branches to overseas branches is not taxable as it's a payment to self. The levy of interest under Section 234A and the initiation of penalty proceedings were restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, dismissed the appeals. However, the assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if their Vivad-se-Vishwas declaration was not accepted by the Revenue.