Loading ITAT cases…
153 tribunal orders from the Ranchi bench in 2020.
Showing 40 of 153 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) is not applicable when the assessee continues to show the liability in its books and purchases from these creditors have been accepted as genuine. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the scheme.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, dismissing it as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if issues arose with the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the Scheme's certificate.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arose with the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the Scheme's certificate.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with the condition that it would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was not approved by the authorities.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is not approved by the authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it was conditioned that the appeal would be restored if the authorities did not approve the assessee's application under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme".
The Tribunal held that there was no evidence to suggest the assessee engaged any sub-contractors for labour payments. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the demand was affirmed as the Assessing Officer failed to pinpoint any sub-contractor or provide evidence of such payments.
The Tribunal held that there was no evidence to suggest the assessee engaged any sub-contractors for labour payments. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the demand was affirmed as the Assessing Officer failed to pinpoint any sub-contractor or provide evidence of such payments.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not considered intervening developments regarding the assessee's Section 12AA registration. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The assessee informed the tribunal that they have filed an application under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The tribunal accepted the assessee's plea for withdrawal of the appeal in light of this.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea in principle, noting that the service tax was not routed through the profit and loss account. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification of the profit and loss account.
The Tribunal restored the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for factual verification of the assessee's rectified deed. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine and verify all issues within three opportunities of hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's submission that they have applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limits for departmental appeals, as per CBDT circulars, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without properly discussing the facts and evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of proportionate bank interest. It agreed with the lower authorities that interest-bearing funds were used for non-business purposes, thus the interest expense was not allowable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed on a non-existent company is bad in law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application based on the genuineness of actual activities, not proposed activities. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in M/S. Ananda Social and Educational Trust, the Tribunal found the CIT(E)'s order to be not in accordance with law.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is rejected by the authorities.
The Tribunal held that the transactions constituted a running account for meeting day-to-day business exigencies, not a loan attracting deemed dividend. Therefore, the impugned addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) was not permissible in law as it violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years without an allegation of failure to disclose material facts is bad in law. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are quashed.
The Tribunal held that the agreement for sale, coupled with payments made and possession, establishes the intention and transfer of rights from the date of the agreement. Therefore, the holding period should be calculated from the agreement date.
The Tribunal held that while club expenses can be for business purposes, a portion might be for personal use. To meet the ends of justice, it disallowed Rs. 20,000/- towards personal expenses and directed the deletion of the balance.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were defective for not specifying the exact nature of the offense. Relying on various High Court judgments, the Tribunal found that such compliance is necessary at the time of finalizing assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular which applies retrospectively. The circular mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below the specified monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were defective for not specifying the exact nature of the offense. Relying on various High Court judgments, the Tribunal found that such compliance is necessary at the time of finalizing assessment proceedings.