Loading ITAT cases…
493 orders · Page 6 of 10
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to have it restored if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn in view of the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.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 restore the appeal if the declaration under the scheme is declared bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to have the appeal restored if the 'Vivad Se Viswas Scheme' declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 assessee requested to withdraw the appeal after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn in view of the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.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 later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn in light of the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn.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 in the future.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had successfully resolved the tax dispute under the VSV scheme. Consequently, the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal was accepted.
The tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court, disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application for restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme did not materialize as expected.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore if the scheme settlement fails.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction for reopening the assessment must be obtained from the authority specified in Section 151(2), which in this case was the Joint Commissioner. Obtaining satisfaction from the Commissioner of Income Tax was considered a defect, rendering the notice and subsequent proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas scheme does not resolve the matter. This decision was based on the assessee's settlement application.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 held that the cross charges were in the nature of reimbursement of expenses. Since the payee (Pfizer Ltd.) had furnished its return, accounted for the sum, and paid the due tax, the assessee was not considered an assessee in default, and disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the assessee's appeals as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following a Madras High Court decision. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if their Vivad-se-Vishwas declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration if the declaration is deemed void.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) for capital advances was not addressed properly and required re-adjudication by the Assessing Officer. The initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, following a Madras High Court decision. The dismissal was with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeals if their declaration under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme is not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the penalty was not sustainable, particularly in light of the CBDT circular and judicial pronouncements regarding additions made under normal provisions when book profits were higher. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Since the assessee opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and filed the necessary application, the tribunal was of the view that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be automatic for every addition and that the issue of including mobilization charges was debatable. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found the penalty not sustainable.
The Tribunal, following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Tata Institute of Social Science, held that Rule 2BBB, though prospective, could be used as an aid to interpret the ambiguous term 'substantially financed'. The assessee's institution was considered substantially financed by the government.
Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to restore them if the Vivad se Vishwas scheme settlement was not successful or accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submission and the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order for a limited purpose to re-examine the CLC/TLC ratio. Considering the AO's adoption of a 4% ratio in the preceding year and the range of ratios adopted in earlier years, the Tribunal held that a 4% ratio is fair and reasonable.
Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to restore them if the Vivad se Vishwas scheme settlement was not successful or accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when an ad-hoc estimation is made by the Assessing Officer. Based on various High Court and Tribunal decisions, estimated additions do not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated income. Since the CIT(A) had reduced the addition to an estimated figure, the penalty levied by the AO on the entire bogus purchases was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5%, following a previous co-ordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect of the disputed additions was below the monetary threshold. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the latest CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Liberty was granted to the revenue to seek recall if exceptions apply or the tax effect exceeds the limit later.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer relied on a retracted statement and general information, while ignoring specific evidence and a later statement from the seller. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was not justified based on the evidence presented.
The Tribunal held that since the addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted by the ITAT in a prior order, the penalty order no longer survives. Consequently, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found no purpose in keeping the appeal pending as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 decided to dispose of the assessee's appeals as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme resolution was not in their favor.
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 considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the Vivad se Vishwas declaration. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme fails to settle the matter.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to take the Written Down Value (WDV) of assets as per the ITAT's order for the previous year as the opening WDV for the current year. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this direction.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals to avail the benefit of the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The Revenue had no objection to this request.