Loading ITAT cases…
610 orders · Page 11 of 13
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect was indeed below the limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal has corrected its previous order by deleting an irrelevant paragraph and renumbering the subsequent paragraphs. This corrigendum is to be read as part of the original order.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration if the settlement fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s order, finding it well-reasoned and balanced. The assessee's declared GP rate of 4.63% was also considered. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case, failing which the CIT(A) can proceed based on available material.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous because the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue accepted this fact, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal found no purpose in keeping the appeal pending and decided to dismiss it. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme declaration was not accepted.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court in a similar case under the VVS Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the VVS Scheme resolution was not in their favour.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and wished to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect of the quantum additions was below the monetary threshold of Rs. 50 Lacs as per the latest CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The tribunal held that the revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect of the disputed additions was below the monetary threshold specified in the CBDT circular. Liberty was granted to the revenue to seek recall if exceptions applied or the tax effect exceeded the limit.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that recovery of bad debts from rural branches is not taxable if deduction was claimed under Section 36(1)(viia) and not Section 36(1)(vii). The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was allowed for statistical purposes to provide another opportunity to the assessee. The applicability of Section 115JB was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO doubted the source of purchase, not the purchase itself, and accepted that the goods were part of the assessee's stock and sales. Considering industry profit margins and a previous similar case, the disallowance was reduced.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect of the quantum additions was indeed below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT circular.
The assessee opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on this submission.
The Tribunal found no purpose in keeping the appeal pending and decided to dismiss it. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the AO's show cause notice was bad in law as it failed to specify the precise charge for penalty, thereby divesting the assessee of an opportunity to defend themselves. This failure was considered a jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal held that the interest charged at 3% on the loan to the subsidiary was at arm's length, considering prevailing LIBOR rates and acceptance in prior years. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was to be decided based on previous rulings, and the revenue's grounds regarding interest, amortization, and depreciation were dismissed, following earlier decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 20% of the alleged non-genuine purchases. The Tribunal found the AO's initial 40% disallowance to be excessive, considering the assessee had provided purchase invoices, ledger copies, and bank statements showing payments.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold limit specified in the CBDT circular. The exception in the circular for external agency information applied to additions, not penalties.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to avail the benefits of the VSVS Scheme.
The assessee opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on this submission.
The Tribunal found no purpose in keeping the appeal pending and decided to dismiss it. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the deduction should not be denied merely because the trust's approval was withdrawn subsequently. It followed a co-ordinate bench decision which stated that disallowance based on evidence collected behind the assessee's back and without cross-examination violates natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenses was incorrect as the investments in work in progress were within the available interest-free funds. The disallowance of administrative expenses was also found to be based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue agreed to the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable. This was based on CBDT circulars that enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable in nature and not solely based on mutuality. The income generated from its activities, even if primarily for members, was for the advancement of its charitable objects.
The Tribunal held that the relevant date for determining the purchase of the new property under Section 54F is the date of taking possession and making full payment, not the date of initial payment or agreement. This date fell within the statutory period allowed after the sale of the original asset.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue agreed to the dismissal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner's order was passed without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard on the specific grounds for revision. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Principal Commissioner for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO doubted the source of purchase, not the purchase itself, and accepted that the goods were part of the assessee's stock and sales. Considering industry profit margins and a previous similar case, the disallowance was reduced.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind to the issues of revenue recognition and interest expenditure, and had made necessary inquiries based on the information provided by the assessee. Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was not validly exercised.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Liberty was granted to the revenue to seek recall if exceptions apply or the tax effect exceeds the limit.
The Tribunal allowed the additional ground for ESOP expenditure to be adjudicated by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to lack of factual matrix on record. The deduction for education cess was already allowed for AY 2007-08 and directed to be allowed for AY 2008-09.
The Tribunal held that while cooperative banks may not be entitled to deduction under Section 80P(4), interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments held with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. It reasoned that the additions were estimated and did not constitute concealment or inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the ALV of vacant flats should be determined based on the municipal rateable value, and if the assessee's ALV determination aligns with it, it should be accepted. The AO was directed to recompute the ALV accordingly.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), finding no infirmity in restricting the disallowance. The assessee's gross profit rate was higher, and details of sales of corresponding gift items were provided.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as dismissed and withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee retains liberty to seek restoration if the settlement fails.
The assessee opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if the declaration is not accepted.