Loading ITAT cases…
74 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the VSV-20 scheme.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's settlement under the VSV-20 scheme and the revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the VSV-20 settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on account of estimated GP, finding no infirmity in the reasoning that books of accounts cannot be rejected without cogent findings of defects and examination by the AO. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it lacked proper reasoning on the points of determination. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT could not invoke revisionary powers under Section 263 because the assessment order had merged with the order of the CIT(A). Since the issue of Section 14A disallowance was already decided by the CIT(A), the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to revise it.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and applied his mind to the issue of 'on money' during the assessment. The PCIT's view that further inquiry was needed did not make the assessment order erroneous. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial documentation to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was not justified as the Assessing Officer (AO) had made the required inquiries and considered the assessee's submissions. The mere possibility of a different view does not empower the PCIT to revise the order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and applied his mind to the issue of 'on money' during the assessment. The PCIT's view that further inquiry was needed did not make the assessment order erroneous. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals as the dispute was settled under the VSV-20 scheme. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) also stands settled as per the scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals as the dispute was settled under the VSV-20 scheme. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) also stands settled as per the scheme.
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 found that the CIT(Appeals) did not record satisfaction regarding the service of notice and failed to pass an order on the points of determination as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, as it failed to decide the grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had prayed for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it was a non-speaking order and lacked proper reasoning. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and conducted sufficient inquiry regarding the 'on-money' disclosure and the subsequent expenses claimed. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT validly exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Revenue did not object. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it did not decide the grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Both parties were granted liberty to seek restoration if the VSV-20 settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal and that the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the disputes under VSV-20 and received Form-3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal and the lack of objection from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal and the lack of objection from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the disputes under VSV-20 and received Form-3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the VSV-20 scheme and received Form-3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, as it failed to provide reasons for its decision on the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit.
Since the underlying additions on which the penalty was levied have been deleted by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty imposed is deleted.
Since the underlying additions on which the penalty was levied have been deleted by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty imposed is deleted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on estimation. Following a coordinate bench decision, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) was invalid due to conflicting dates between the assessment order and the penalty order regarding the notice. Furthermore, the assessee had ultimately made bonafide compliance, rendering the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The primary issue revolved around the validity of the reference made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 55A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the amendment to Section 55A(a) by the Finance Act, 2012, which came into effect from July 1, 2012, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2012-13, where the transaction occurred in financial year 2011-12. The Tribunal concurred with this contention, relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in *CIT vs. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl.* and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in *CIT Vs. Pooja Prints*, which held that the amended provisions of Section 55A are not retrospective and apply to transactions from July 1, 2012, onwards. Consequently, the amended provisions would be applicable from AY 2013-14, not AY 2012-13. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even under the erstwhile provisions of Section 55A(a), the AO could only refer the matter to the DVO if they formed an opinion that the value claimed by the assessee was *less than* its fair market value. In this case, the assessee's claimed value was higher than the DVO's valuation, meaning the AO was not empowered to make the reference. Therefore, the addition made by the AO based on the DVO's report was deleted. The appeal was allowed on this ground.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not follow the mandate of Section 250(6) by not passing a reasoned order on the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to represent their case.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits and that rules cannot substitute statutory provisions. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that additions cannot be made solely on the non-production of parties after a significant time gap, especially when sales are accepted and transactions are supported by bank channels. The Tribunal also found no specific reason for rejecting the assessee's books of accounts regarding the closing balance difference.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the GP addition, finding the assessee's explanation for the fall in GP to be acceptable. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the TDS disallowance, agreeing that the software purchase was for a product and not royalty.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient own funds, it could be presumed that these funds were used for the advances, thus no notional interest should be added. For the disallowance due to non-deduction of TDS, the matter was remitted to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under VSV-20.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was not erroneous as the AO had made due inquiries and taken a reasonable view. The Tribunal also noted that the jurisdictional High Court had held such interest income to be deductible.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn after the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the revenue representative raised no objection. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and the no-objection from the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the VSV settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A), noting that the investor companies had accepted the additions and settled the dispute by paying tax under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the same amount had already been taxed in the hands of the investor companies.
The tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal and the revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders as per the relevant CBDT circular.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the VSV-20 scheme and received the necessary confirmation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the VSV-20 settlement was not finalized.