Loading ITAT cases…
493 orders · Page 3 of 10
The Tribunal noted that the matters were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as the matters were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Tribunal, with no opposition from the Revenue, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
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The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal must be withdrawn. The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made inquiries and applied his mind to the issues, even if not discussed elaborately in the assessment order. The notes to accounts provided sufficient explanation, and the AO's acceptance of the claim was a possible view.
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 acknowledged the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal found it appropriate to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn in light of the settlement.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for withdrawal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the prayer.
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Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as it did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT circulars. The exception for additions based on external agency information was held to apply only to additions, not penalties.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, granting liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is not accepted. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020 requires the withdrawal of related appeals. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the assessee's prayer.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as the matters were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Tribunal, not opposing the prayer, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. As the matter was settled, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. As the scheme resolves the dispute, the appeal is required to be withdrawn.
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 therefore dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal found it appropriate to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the matters were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
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, following a precedent from the Madras High Court, treated the appeal as disposed of by withdrawal. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favour.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion on the same material available during the original assessment, and not on any fresh or new material. The Tribunal relied on its previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2006-07.
The tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and, following a High Court precedent, treated the appeals and cross-objections as disposed of as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if needed.
The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in this appeal were identical to a previously decided case of a related assessee. Therefore, the decision in the prior case would apply mutatis-mutandis to this appeal.
The Tribunal acknowledged the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the matter was resolved.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for withdrawal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the prayer.
The Tribunal noted that the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020 requires withdrawal of related appeals. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the assessee's prayer.
The Tribunal noted that the matters were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas application was not accepted, with delay to be condoned.
The Tribunal noted that the matters were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and, following a High Court precedent, treated the appeals and cross-objections as disposed of as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if needed.
The Tribunal noted that the matters were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the software was transferred to the holding company and was not entirely discarded, as it had been utilized by the assessee and depreciation claimed. A premium of 15% on the asset's value at the time of transfer was deemed appropriate.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The departmental representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the interest was actually paid through the overdraft/cash credit account and was not converted into a loan, especially since the debit balance was within the enhanced overdraft limit. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions and a High Court ruling on similar facts.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and, following a precedent from the Madras High Court, decided to dismiss the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal 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 under the scheme is declared bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in estimating the profit element at 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. The assessee retains liberty to seek restoration if the settlement fails.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and had filed the necessary forms. Since no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
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 held that the AO's show cause notice for penalty was invalid as it failed to specify the exact default for which penalty was sought. This failure violated the principles of natural justice and the mandate of Section 274(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence and grounds. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the entire matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling that prior period expenses crystallizing in the current year are allowable, especially when the assessee's accounting method has been consistently followed and accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS2020 and filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.