Loading ITAT cases…
66 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the absence of any objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per the prevailing CBDT circulars. The merits of the case were not considered.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the absence of any objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the absence of any objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the absence of any objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and remitted the matter back for a fresh disposal. The CIT(A) was directed to allow a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The learned DR did not raise any objection to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that an order under Section 139(9) declaring a return invalid, especially when it jeopardizes a refund, is appealable under Section 246A(1)(a) as an order where the assessee denies liability, or under Section 246A(1)(i) as akin to an order refusing refund.
The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of a claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The additions were based on information already provided by the assessee, and there was no finding of furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E was provided prospectively from 01.06.2015. Therefore, the levy of fees for periods prior to this date was without authority of law.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals). The disallowance of excess depreciation claimed by the assessee was confirmed as per the relevant Income Tax Rules.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities or the Tribunal, she did file a revised return offering the omitted income to tax. The Tribunal ruled that the assessee's conduct indicated no mala-fide intention to cause loss to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the revision proceedings under Section 263 were vitiated due to a deficit of jurisdiction. The CIT's power to revise can only be exercised after suo motu calling for and examining the record, not based on a proposal from the AO.
The tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E was provided prospectively from 01.06.2015. Therefore, the levy of fees for periods prior to this date was without authority of law.