Loading ITAT cases…
610 orders · Page 2 of 13
The Tribunal acknowledged the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request.
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Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Tribunal found it fit and proper to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed when the assessment is completed under Section 143(3) and not under Section 144. The assessee's submission regarding change of address was considered realistic.
The Tribunal held that a mere change in the classification of loss from business to speculative loss, especially when the assessee had a bonafide belief, is not sufficient to impose a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that additions based on statements of entry providers without providing cross-examination opportunities or confronting evidence are unsustainable. Additions related to entities not belonging to tainted groups or where no incriminating material was found were deleted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition to income is sustained purely on an estimated basis, as it does not necessarily imply concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal acknowledged the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal found no opposition from the Revenue to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that additions based on statements from entry providers without providing an opportunity for cross-examination were unsustainable. Additions related to entities not belonging to the 'tainted group' without incriminating material were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions based on statements from entry providers without providing an opportunity for cross-examination were unsustainable. Additions related to entities not belonging to the 'tainted group' without incriminating material were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that since there was no variation in the returned income, the provisions for issuing a draft assessment order were not applicable. Consequently, the final assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limit and were quashed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on income that has been added on an estimated basis. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 because the AO's order was passed to give effect to appellate orders, and the PCIT did not specify the nature of inquiries that should have been conducted by the AO. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's action was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that additions based on statements from entry providers without providing an opportunity for cross-examination were unsustainable. Additions related to entities not belonging to the 'tainted group' without incriminating material were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions based on statements from entry providers without providing an opportunity for cross-examination were unsustainable. Additions related to entities not belonging to the 'tainted group' without incriminating material were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly restricted the addition. The addition was deleted as the items were purchased prior to 1999 and the assessee had declared substantial jewellery value in wealth tax returns.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made on an estimation basis, especially when sales are not doubted and documentary evidence for purchases was produced. The assessee was not found to have concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made on an estimation basis, especially when sales are not doubted and documentary evidence for purchases was produced. The assessee was not found to have concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty was ex-parte and that the addition was made on an estimated basis. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be levied.
The Tribunal held that the claim of deduction under Section 11(1)(a) was made by the assessee in the return of income, albeit in a wrong column, which constituted a rectifiable clerical mistake. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that for properties not let out, municipal valuation is a proper yardstick for determining annual value. The AO's action of adopting annual value based on inquiries regarding market rent was not in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and had prayed to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this course of action.
The Tribunal held that the gains from share sales should be treated as short-term capital gains, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The disallowance under Section 14A was directed to be restricted to the exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when there is no exempt income. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation at 60% based on the assessee's own case and related precedents.
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Madras High Court and dismissed the appeals. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if their declaration under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme was not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the TPO cannot determine the ALP at nil on an ad-hoc basis without applying any prescribed method. Since the facts and issues were similar to a previous assessment year where the addition was deleted, the Tribunal followed that precedent.
The Tribunal held that failure to furnish the reasons for reopening to the assessee, despite a request, vitiates the reassessment proceedings. The assessment order was passed without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that failure to furnish the reasons for reopening to the assessee, despite a request, vitiates the reassessment proceedings. The assessment order was passed without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received a certificate under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal held that since the sales were accepted, the entire purchases could not be disallowed. Only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed, restricting the addition to 8% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending since the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and had filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and had filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found anomalies in the financial statements and noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the unit was an ongoing concern. The Tribunal also considered additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which cast doubt on the slump sale claim.
The Tribunal held that the gains from share sales should be treated as short-term capital gains, following its previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The disallowance under Section 14A was directed to be restricted to the exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that failure to furnish the reasons for reopening to the assessee, despite a request, vitiates the reassessment proceedings. The assessment order was passed without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, the estimated profit of 12.5% was on the higher side. The addition was restricted to 6.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals for all assessment years. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary declarations and undertakings.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is applicable only for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Additions made on an estimated basis by the AO, without concrete evidence of actual concealment, do not warrant the initiation of penalty.
The Tribunal noted that since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the appeal was disposed of as dismissed.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals for all assessment years. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary declarations and undertakings.
The Tribunal held that for properties not let out, municipal valuation is a proper yardstick for determining annual value. The AO's action of adopting annual value based on inquiries regarding market rent was not in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not proving the creditworthiness of the creditors due to ongoing legal disputes with the assessee's sister concerns. The ledger extracts, showing transactions routed through banking channels and interest payments, were considered sufficient evidence of genuineness.
The Tribunal held that since the primary Section 263 order was quashed, any subsequent proceedings giving effect to it would be without basis. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in treating the assessment order as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence (Form 15G/15H) as the assessee was genuinely prevented from filing them before the AO. The issue was remanded to the AO for verification of these forms and a fresh decision on the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the addition was made on an estimated percentage basis for alleged bogus purchases, especially when the assessee accepted the addition before the first appellate authority.