Loading ITAT cases…
29 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that both accounting methods are recognized. Since the assessee switched to the Project Completion method bona fide and continued with it in subsequent years, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeals as they intended to avail relief under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for the specified assessment years. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeals as they intended to avail relief under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for the specified assessment years. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeals as they intended to avail relief under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for the specified assessment years. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of property was completed in the year 2000, as per Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, considering the agreement, possession, and part consideration payment. Therefore, capital gains were taxable in the earlier assessment year.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeals as they intended to avail relief under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for the specified assessment years. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeals as they intended to avail relief under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for the specified assessment years. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeals as they intended to avail relief under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for the specified assessment years. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal as they decided to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The assessee sought to withdraw its appeal before the ITAT due to opting for the VSV scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as it lacked material to demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Pr. CIT's finding was based on ipse dixit, not on record.
The Tribunal held that the omission of other income from the total income in the original assessment order was a clear and patent mistake. Therefore, the rectification under Section 154 was justified to correct this mistake.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the application filed under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that short-term capital gains should be treated as such, not business income, following its own prior decision and High Court rulings. It also allowed deduction for education cess and upheld the CIT(A)'s direction regarding Section 80IA deduction.
The Tribunal granted the assessee permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal proceedings can be revived if the Pr. Commissioner declines to issue the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate.
The Tribunal granted the appellant permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that short-term capital gains should be treated as such, not business income, following its own prior decision and High Court rulings. It also allowed deduction for education cess and upheld the CIT(A)'s direction regarding Section 80IA deduction.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) was directed to decide the matter afresh on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The revenue did not raise any objection to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) was directed to decide the matter afresh on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal, following its own earlier decision on identical facts, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The tribunal noted that in a previous assessment year, the matter was also remitted to the AO for re-consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of valuing closing stock, which considered left-over stock from opening stock and fresh purchases at their respective rates, was justified. The AO's method of averaging the opening stock and purchases was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the debentures were never converted into equity and were redeemed as such. It found that the basis for the previous year's arm's length interest rate determination was no longer relevant and restored the matter to the AO for fresh determination. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction of education cess.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Since the exact amount of exempt income was not on record, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for recalculation.
The Tribunal found that the Trust Deed already contained the requisite clauses, and the assessee had submitted the necessary details through the e-portal before the CIT(Exemption) passed the order. Therefore, the denial of registration was unjustified.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, as no objection was raised by the revenue.
The Tribunal permitted the legal heir to withdraw the appeal as no objection was raised by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the debentures were never converted into equity and were redeemed as such. It found that the basis for the previous year's arm's length interest rate determination was no longer relevant and restored the matter to the AO for fresh determination. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction of education cess.