Loading ITAT cases…
10 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's application for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) was subsequently allowed by the CIT(Exemption) for the relevant assessment years, the income stands exempted. Consequently, any disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) would not create any tax liability.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's application for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) was subsequently allowed by the CIT(Exemption) for the relevant assessment years, the income stands exempted. Consequently, any disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) would not create any tax liability.
The Tribunal considered the assessees' request for withdrawal of appeals due to their participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal considered the assessees' request for withdrawal of appeals due to their participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). It noted that the AO, in the remand report, was satisfied with the genuineness of the sundry creditors after receiving confirmations and ledger accounts.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of all the captioned appeals filed by the different assessees. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of all the captioned appeals filed by the different assessees. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of all the captioned appeals filed by the different assessees. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of all the captioned appeals filed by the different assessees. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 12/2016 and the Supreme Court judgment in TRF Ltd., it is sufficient for a bad debt claim to be written off as irrecoverable in the books of account, provided it meets the conditions of Section 36(2). The ad hoc disallowance on miscellaneous expenses was also found unjustified.