Loading ITAT cases…
610 orders · Page 5 of 13
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, canceling the reassessment. This was because the AO failed to provide any proof of service of the section 148 notice or confirmation of the assessee's request to treat the original return as a response, despite repeated opportunities. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of ₹50 lacs. Since the appeal did not fall under any exceptions to the circular, it was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that if the revision order is invalid, any subsequent assessment order based on it becomes infructuous. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that once a debt is written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, it should be allowed as a deduction, citing the Supreme Court's decision in TRF Ltd. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order allowing the bad debt claim.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) must first decide the rectification application filed by the assessee. The appeal was considered not maintainable until the rectification application was adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition that was not a subject matter of the revision proceedings under Section 263. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the actual amount of purchases from the vendor and estimate the profit at 6% on the disputed purchases to tax the embedded profit.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme application had been accepted by the department. No objection was raised by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year, and on the same set of facts available during the original assessment. Therefore, the notice issued was bad in law.
The Tribunal held that broken period interest paid on purchase of securities is deductible as business expenditure, and depreciation on securities held as stock-in-trade is allowable. This was based on the principle that even if classified as investments for regulatory purposes, their nature as stock-in-trade for business operations dictates the tax treatment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the delay by producing supporting documents, evidence, or the accountant. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on condonation and, if condoned, on merits.
The Tribunal found that the AO overlooked crucial facts regarding the property being vacant for repairs and the municipal rateable value. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and had applied under it. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty, relying on the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. M. Yesodha (Smt). It was held that in cases of genuine and bonafide transactions between blood relations, where reasonable cause is shown, penalty under Section 271D may not be imposable.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for default and is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the assessee's absence. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3, indicating acceptance of their declaration. The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision, granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme declaration is not accepted. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order under section 263 had been quashed by the Tribunal itself. Consequently, the consequential assessment order and any appeal against it were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary documentary evidence, including bank statements, confirmations, and TDS details. The AO failed to gather independent evidence to disprove the genuineness of the transactions, and therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.
Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the ITAT granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration was not in their favour. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and filed the necessary form. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for default and is bound to decide it on merits. Since the CIT(A) did not adjudicate on merits, the matter was remanded back.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court, granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeals if the declaration under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme is not in their favour. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that broken period interest paid on purchase of securities is deductible as business expenditure, and depreciation on securities held as stock-in-trade is allowable. This was based on the principle that even if classified as investments for regulatory purposes, their nature as stock-in-trade for business operations dictates the tax treatment.
The Tribunal held that the remuneration declared in the revised return was in consonance with the audited accounts of the partnership firm, which had also been accepted by the Revenue. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 16 lacs was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision, granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration was not in their favour. The appeal was dismissed in light of the scheme.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the revenue.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in 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 appeals as dismissed and withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the declaration under the scheme is declared bad in law.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to provide sufficient linkage, reduced the profit estimation on disputed purchases from 12.5% to 6%. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should be treated as disposed of 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 not in their favor.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that since the assessee was a trader, it was appropriate to estimate the profit element embedded in the suspicious transactions rather than making a full addition.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals subject to the assessee's liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that agricultural land, per se, does not fall within the definition of 'property' under Section 56(2)(vii) unless it qualifies as a capital asset. The matter was restored to the AO to determine if the land falls within the exceptions to the definition of agricultural land under Section 2(14).
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the revenue.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the revenue.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the revenue.
Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal held that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose as the assessee opted for settlement. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to restore it if the scheme settlement was not favorable.
The Tribunal, following the Bombay High Court's decision in PCIT v. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co, held that additions should be restricted to bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on disputed purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases, rather than adding the entire estimated profit.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law because the name of the supplier mentioned in the reasons for reopening and in the assessment order do not match. This discrepancy vitiates the entire reassessment process.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on an estimated profit on bogus purchases when the assessee provided details of book entries, cheque payments, and the Assessing Officer did not doubt the sales. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the facts of the case were similar to the Bombay High Court's decision in Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. Therefore, the addition should be restricted to bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on disputed purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court decision, allowed the withdrawal of appeals with liberty to restore them if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme declaration is not accepted by the Revenue.