Loading ITAT cases…
62 tribunal orders from the Patna bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 62 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and decided not to keep the appeals pending. The appeals were dismissed with a liberty to the assessee to seek recalling of the order if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and decided not to keep the appeals pending. The appeals were dismissed with a liberty to the assessee to seek recalling of the order if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and decided not to keep the appeals pending. The appeals were dismissed with a liberty to the assessee to seek recalling of the order if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal held that the trust was created for the benefit of specified deities who were the sole beneficiaries, and their shares were determinate (equal). Therefore, Section 164 of the Income-tax Act, which mandates taxation at the maximum marginal rate for AOPs with indeterminate shares, was not applicable.
The Tribunal decided to adjudicate the legal issue raised by the assessee regarding the validity of reopening the assessment. The assessee argued that the reopening after four years was invalid as the conditions in the first proviso to Section 147 were not met.
The Tribunal held that the initial disallowance of depreciation in the original assessment was a mistake apparent from the record, correctly rectified in the first 154 order. The addition of interest income was upheld as the FDR purpose was not established. The profit rate issue was not properly arising from the second 154 order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and accepted the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity. The CIT's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that Section 43CA, introduced from April 1, 2014, was not applicable to agreements to sell entered into prior to this date. Therefore, the addition made by invoking this section was not sustainable.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, including tax payment. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and that there was no reason to keep the departmental appeal pending. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme requirements and deposited the tax. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme by depositing the tax. Therefore, there was no point in keeping the departmental appeal pending.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, including depositing the tax. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme by remitting the tax. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was deemed to have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. It also set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to verify if the deposits relate to potato sales and, if so, restrict the addition to the profit element of those sales.
The Tribunal held that the incentive was a subsidy for the purchase of a van and thus covered by Explanation 10 to Section 43(1), not Section 28(iv). Therefore, it was not taxable as business income. The Tribunal also partly allowed the appeal regarding freight inward expenses, reducing the disallowance.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) enhanced the addition without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to show cause. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 received from one shareholder as the assessee failed to provide evidence of his creditworthiness or tax assessment. However, for the other Rs. 5,00,000, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The tribunal held that the AO failed to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value, which is a mandatory requirement. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh decision after referring to the DVO.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The tribunal noted that if the assessee has opted for the scheme and received Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn and stands dismissed. If the proposal was not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the order.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee availing the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, as the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.