Loading ITAT cases…
189 tribunal orders from the Surat bench in 2020.
Showing 40 of 189 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed held the property for more than 36 months based on substantial payment and possession taken on 29.09.2006, entitling them to long-term capital gains. The deduction under Section 54F was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the Revenue's no objection. The assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal. The Revenue had no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee applied to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal and the Departmental Representative's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn, as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for premium paid on investment amortized, following its own previous decisions. For MICR charges, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the recipient (SBI) had offered the income for taxation, and if so, to delete the disallowance.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and allowed them to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and allowed it. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO's initial premise for valuation was erroneous as the closing stock comprised of 'scrap' and not 'EP Grade' material. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the issue was revenue neutral as the tax rate remained the same for both years, citing a Supreme Court judgment.
The assessee sought withdrawal of both appeals to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme, and the revenue had no objection.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee sought withdrawal of both appeals to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) as it was not passed on merits. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a mere change of opinion by the AO, as the issue of sales promotion expenses was already examined during the original assessment. Therefore, all subsequent actions were void.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked powers under Section 80IA(8) to restrict the deduction under Section 80IB(10). The estimation of average profit by both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) was found to be without basis.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without affording a fair opportunity to the assessee and without adjudicating the additional ground of appeal. Therefore, the case was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that no fresh notice under Section 143(2) was required when the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on specific issues. The Tribunal also deleted the additions made under Section 68, finding that the assessee had discharged its burden by establishing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. Furthermore, the additions for undervaluation of stock were deleted as the assessee's valuation methods were found to be reasonable and supported by evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the return as invalid without issuing a show cause notice, especially since the AO had accepted the original return. The Tribunal admitted the additional claim made in the revised return.
The tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular. The revenue was allowed to seek revival if exceptions to the circular applied.
The Tribunal held that since the grounds of appeal and facts were identical to a previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, which was decided in favour of the assessee, there was no merit in the revenue's appeal. The order of the CIT(A) was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets higher monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper notice to the assessee, who had provided a new address. Citing a similar case of the assessee's wife, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.