Loading ITAT cases…
88 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the assessees' submission that they were availing settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The dismissal was with a rider that appeals could be restored if settlement failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the assessees' submission that they were availing settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The dismissal was with a rider that appeals could be restored if settlement failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the assessees' submission that they were availing settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The dismissal was with a rider that appeals could be restored if settlement failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the assessees' submission that they were availing settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The dismissal was with a rider that appeals could be restored if settlement failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the assessees' submission that they were availing settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The dismissal was with a rider that appeals could be restored if settlement failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the assessees' submission that they were availing settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The dismissal was with a rider that appeals could be restored if settlement failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the assessees' submission that they were availing settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The dismissal was with a rider that appeals could be restored if settlement failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it failed to specify the grounds for imposing the penalty, violating the principles of natural justice. Following established jurisprudence, the penalty was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide necessary evidence to support his claim regarding the source of the cash deposits during assessment or before the CIT(A). The Tribunal confirmed the addition made by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the second round of Section 154 proceedings initiated by the AO to assess royalty income was impermissible as Section 154 jurisdiction cannot be used to address debatable issues. The AO's rectification exercise was therefore reversed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not clearly specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following the precedent set by the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal found the penalty imposition to be invalid.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the assessees' submission that they were availing settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The dismissal was with a rider that appeals could be restored if settlement failed for technical reasons.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities and DVO did not consider the assessee's factors like self-supervision and cheap labor. Therefore, the additions were restricted to 60% of the impugned estimated cost of construction.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to restoration if the assessee fails to avail the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' for technical reasons.
The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the understanding that if their application under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme is rejected, the appeal may be restored. The revenue did not dispute this plea.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the re-opening as not pressed. The issue of unexplained investment was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification due to lack of proper verification by lower authorities.
The tribunal deleted the addition for unexplained unsecured loans, finding that the lower authorities had not demonstrated they had called the directors for examination. The disallowance of loans was rejected as it did not emanate from the assessment order.
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The revenue did not dispute this plea.
The Tribunal held that adding the entire excess stock was incorrect. Following precedent, it directed that only the profit element of the excess stock should be assessed as income.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities and DVO did not consider the assessee's factors like self-supervision and cheap labor. Therefore, the additions were restricted to 60% of the impugned estimated cost of construction.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities and DVO did not consider the assessee's factors like self-supervision and cheap labor. Therefore, the additions were restricted to 60% of the impugned estimated cost of construction.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities and DVO did not consider the assessee's factors like self-supervision and cheap labor. Therefore, the additions were restricted to 60% of the impugned estimated cost of construction.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities and DVO did not consider the assessee's factors like self-supervision and cheap labor. Therefore, the additions were restricted to 60% of the impugned estimated cost of construction.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the re-opening as not pressed. The issue of unexplained investment was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification due to lack of proper verification by lower authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This dismissal is conditional, with the rider that the appeal will be restored if the assessee fails to avail the settlement under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" for technical reasons.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities and DVO did not consider the assessee's factors like self-supervision and cheap labor. Therefore, the additions were restricted to 60% of the impugned estimated cost of construction.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition that they would be restored if the assessees failed to avail the settlement under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition that they would be restored if the assessees failed to avail the settlement under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition that they would be restored if the assessees failed to avail the settlement under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition that they would be restored if the assessees failed to avail the settlement under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" for technical reasons.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order did not indicate proper service of hearing notices. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's books of accounts due to lack of factual verification. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to re-estimate the net profit rate at 7.5% based on the assessee's concession.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was because the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte, and it was not established that the assessee was properly served with a hearing notice.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition that they would be restored if the assessees failed to avail the settlement under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition that they would be restored if the assessees failed to avail the settlement under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition that they would be restored if the assessees failed to avail the settlement under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" for technical reasons.