Loading ITAT cases…
185 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the trust deed contained the necessary clauses, albeit with minor typographical errors in the assessee's communication. The Tribunal also noted that a winding-up clause is not mandatory as per High Court precedent.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee is at liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is disapproved.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the 12AA registration solely based on self-made vouchers and the absence of bank withdrawals, especially since the bank account was opened later. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT did not doubt the charitable objects of the society.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the 12AA registration solely based on self-made vouchers and the absence of bank withdrawals, especially since the bank account was opened later. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT did not doubt the charitable objects of the society.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The revenue did not raise any objection to the withdrawal request.
The tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee expressed a desire to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make an addition unrelated to the reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings. The addition of unexplained cash deposits was therefore illegal as it did not arise from the grounds for reopening.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present additional evidence and be heard.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested. The revenue did not raise any objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas application was disapproved by the Revenue.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Both the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Both the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declarations and received a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declarations and received a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed the necessary application. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and filed the necessary application. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had filed the necessary application. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the issues were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application was disapproved.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee had filed the necessary declarations and received a certificate confirming acceptance under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal is conditional, allowing the assessee to restore the appeals if their Vivad Se Vishwas application is disapproved.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal is conditional, allowing the assessee to restore the appeals if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is disapproved by the department.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the issues were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application was disapproved.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas application was disapproved.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, the appeal filed by the Revenue should be dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal noted that the supporting documents (invoices/credit notes) were not produced before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issues were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's revisionary power under Section 263, even with the enlarged scope of Explanation 2, was not legally exercisable because none of the four clauses of Explanation 2 were met. The AO had taken a possible view after conducting inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the income earned from the sale of software products, whether directly to end-users or through distributors/resellers, constitutes business income and not royalty income. Since the assessee had no Permanent Establishment in India, this business income is not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had applied his mind to the issue and taken a possible view, especially considering similar favorable orders for preceding years. Therefore, the CIT's revision order was not justified.
The Tribunal quashed the revisionary orders passed under Section 263, as they were the foundation for the current assessment proceedings. Consequently, the assessment orders and consequential impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the delay in granting approval by the CIT, especially since the application was made much earlier. The delay on the part of the CIT in processing the application cannot be a ground for denying the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the income earned from the sale of software products, whether directly to end-users or through distributors/resellers, constitutes business income and not royalty income. Since the assessee had no Permanent Establishment in India, this business income is not taxable in India.
The Tribunal quashed the revisionary orders passed under Section 263. As the foundation for the assessments no longer existed, the assessment orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that Eclerx Services Ltd. is functionally dissimilar to the assessee's engineering design services, citing previous judgments and the nature of Eclerx's business in data analytics and process outsourcing. Therefore, Eclerx should be excluded from the comparable set.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 133(6) had a flawed date and the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to reconcile the difference. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had provided evidence of responding to two notices, it failed to substantiate its response to the third notice. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for re-adjudication after providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient own funds for investments and no borrowed funds were utilized for earning dividend income. Therefore, no further disallowance under Section 14A was warranted.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B was not warranted as the tax audit report was filed along with the revised returns reflecting the actual turnover. The occasion for audit arises once actual turnover is reflected in the books.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee is allowed to revive the appeal if the certificate under the Act is not issued.