Loading ITAT cases…
165 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 21 of 2015. The appeal was dismissed in limine, with liberty to the department to seek recall if the tax effect was found to be higher.
The tribunal, following the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., presumed the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal, following previous decisions of the High Court and ITAT in the assessee's own case, held that the activities were for general public utility and not business. Therefore, the denial of exemption by the AO was incorrect.
The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following a precedent, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and the lack of any petition for adjournment. It was presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and the lack of a petition for adjournment. It was presumed that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in summarily dismissing the appeal due to delay, as there was a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also deleted the late fee charged under Section 234E, stating it was beyond the scope of Section 200A at the relevant time.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in summarily dismissing the appeal due to delay, as there was a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also deleted the late fee charged under Section 234E, stating it was beyond the scope of Section 200A at the relevant time.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in summarily dismissing the appeal due to delay, as there was a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also deleted the late fee charged under Section 234E, stating it was beyond the scope of Section 200A at the relevant time.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not entirely bogus, a significant portion was inflated. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 25% of the bogus purchases as income was upheld as a fair estimation given the circumstances.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not entirely bogus, a significant portion was inflated. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 25% of the bogus purchases as income was upheld as a fair estimation given the circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in money lending business, as evidenced by its partnership deed, declaration of interest income as business income, and balance sheet entries. Therefore, the bad debt claim was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of Rs. 1 crore as the reinvestment of Rs. 50 lakhs in each of two financial years is permissible under Section 54EC. The CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction was upheld.