Loading ITAT cases…
493 orders · Page 7 of 10
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.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to revive it if the Vivad se Vishwas scheme settlement fails. The Tribunal also clarified that no condonation of delay would be required if the appeal is restored due to issues with the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the amount of dividend income earned by the assessee. This was in line with Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the disputes were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of a claim does not automatically lead to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). It found that the assessee had disclosed all particulars and its conduct was not contumacious or malafide, thus setting aside the penalty.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the consequential order passed by the AO pursuant to a quashed Section 263 order cannot survive. The Revenue's appeal was found to have no substance.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeals if the Vivad se Vishwas scheme settlement fails.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's precedent, treated the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, considering the evidence of goods movement and relying on a High Court decision. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that since sales were not doubted, 100% disallowance was not justified. Considering the assessee purchased from the grey market, a 12.5% disallowance was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention that penalty cannot be levied on estimated additions was rejected, citing a High Court decision. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the AO's action of levying penalty on the difference between the re-assessed income and the original returned income.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the Vivad se Vishwas declaration. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement fails.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, subject to the condition that the appeal can be revived if the Vivad se Vishwas scheme does not resolve the matter. The Tribunal also clarified that no condonation of delay would be required if the appeal is restored due to the scheme's failure.
The Tribunal, following a High Court order in a similar case, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that income from 'on money' should be taxed in the year of project completion, following the assessee's project completion method of accounting. It also directed that the 'on money' should be taxed at 12%, aligning with a Settlement Commission order for group entities.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.
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 held that the expenses incurred for repairs and maintenance should be treated as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The assessee's claim was allowed based on consistency with previous years and its status as a leaseholder.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to seek restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that the denial of a claim does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), especially when the assessee has furnished all necessary particulars. The conduct of the assessee was not found to be contumacious, making the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) needs to be re-examined by the AO, considering the nature of investments. Regarding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on provisions for expenses, the Tribunal, following the Gujarat High Court's decision, directed the AO to verify if TDS was deducted when final bills were received.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if their declaration under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts was not justified as the assessee had maintained proper records and explained the fall in gross profit due to old stock valuation. The previous addition of Rs. 12 Lacs on closing stock valuation was already deleted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) needs to be re-examined by the AO, considering the nature of investments. Regarding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on provisions for expenses, the Tribunal, following the Gujarat High Court's decision, directed the AO to verify if TDS was deducted when final bills were received.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect of the disputed additions was below the monetary threshold limit set by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal, following a precedent from the Madras High Court. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if their declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147. However, it found the 25% disallowance to be excessive and reduced it to 8% of the non-genuine purchases, considering industry profit margins and VAT paid.
The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable when the assessment is completed based on an estimation of profit, as opposed to a determined income. Therefore, the penalty levied was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, agreeing with the CIT(A) that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made on an estimation basis, as there is no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element embedded in the non-genuine purchases at 6% and restrict the disallowance accordingly.
The assessee's request for withdrawal was permitted by the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow only the profit element of the non-genuine purchases. The Tribunal reasoned that since the assessee's sales were not disputed, the purchases must have been made, albeit from an undeclared source.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme for dispute settlement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall if the declaration is not accepted.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal after settling the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the purchases, even if the source was not fully established. The addition was made on an estimated basis, and therefore, there was no concealment of income justifying the penalty.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall if the declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's intention to utilize the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a similar High Court decision, decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration was deemed void.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant financial year. This decision was based on various High Court judgments cited in the order.
The tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation to be bonafide. The appeal was admitted for hearing on merits, with the assessee given the opportunity to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following a Madras High Court decision. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration was not accepted.