Loading ITAT cases…
493 orders · Page 5 of 10
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction of education cess and secondary and higher education cess, even if not initially claimed in the original return, could be considered by appellate authorities. The appeals were partly allowed.
The CIT(A) agreed that the purchases were not genuine but restricted the addition to 12.5% of the purchase value, considering the assessee had accounted for corresponding sales. The Tribunal upheld this decision.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme declaration is later declared bad in law.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and had filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee is pursuing settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. 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 2020' and filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the existence of a dependent agency permanent establishment (DAPE) is tax-neutral if the agent is paid arm's length remuneration. Since the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) found the remuneration to be at arm's length, the issue of PE existence became academic and had no tax effect.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was not in their favor.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which was conceded by the revenue. Consequently, both the appeal and the cross-objections became infructuous.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
Following the Madras High Court's decision, the ITAT dismissed the appeals with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if their Vivad-se-Vishwas declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the assessee can seek restoration of the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This decision was based on a CBDT circular directing withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal treated the pending appeal as dismissed and withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is declared bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue submitted that the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal in light of the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as dismissed and withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the litigation under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Following a Madras High Court decision, the tribunal disposed of the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind to the issue and taken a plausible view, especially given the conflicting judicial precedents at the time. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, making the revision under Section 263 invalid.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
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, acknowledging the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
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 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 treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn in view of the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the declaration under the scheme is declared bad in law.
The tribunal followed the precedent set by the Madras High Court and treated the assessee's appeal as disposed of by withdrawal. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not favorable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSV scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is declared bad in law.
The assessee requested the withdrawal of the appeal as they had availed the benefits of the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The tribunal accepted the request.
Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to restore it if the scheme application was not finalized or accepted.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration is declared bad in law.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of fuel expenses was not justifiable as sufficient evidence was produced. It also ruled that a payment made to regularize land ownership, following a Supreme Court order, was a revenue expenditure. The issues of depreciation and TDS credit were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration is declared bad in law.
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 dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
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 treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal treated the pending appeal as dismissed and withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn in view of the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the declaration under the scheme is declared bad in law.
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 allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and their declaration was accepted.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration is later declared bad in law.
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 treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in 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 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, noting the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the scheme declaration is not accepted.