Loading ITAT cases…
230 tribunal orders from the Amritsar bench in 2018.
Showing 40 of 230 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the mention of a wrong section is inconsequential. It also noted the lack of evidence for the housing loan and construction expenses, leading to an adverse inference. However, acknowledging some construction activity, the Tribunal allowed a further relief of Rs. 1 lac.
The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal. It accepted the explanation for certain cash deposits and restricted the addition for the plot acquisition. The profit on a house sold in the subsequent year was to be assessed in that year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanations for the cash deposits were false and unsubstantiated. The penalty proceedings were valid, and the notice under section 274 was not defective to the extent of invalidating the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence for the source of expenditure on house construction. The explanation offered was unsubstantiated and lacked cogent evidence, and the penalty was therefore sustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting both disallowances. It found the Cupola expenses to be necessary and incidental to the business, and the property improvement expenses were supported by vouchers and reflected in the books of account.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide material to establish the assessee was engaged in property sale and purchase as a business. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, it concluded that the sale of long-held personal investments at a profit constitutes capital accretion, not business income.
The Tribunal held that whether the assessee paid the creditors, or someone paid on its behalf, or the creditors introduced their own money, Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act would be attracted due to the remission or cessation of a trade liability. The addition of Rs. 4,38,872/- was upheld as income for the relevant year.
The Tribunal held that the amended circular was applicable to the present case and that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had applied to withdraw the appeal due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the Revenue's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been filed by the Revenue given the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The circular mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had applied to withdraw the appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the Revenue's application to withdraw the appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT circulars. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be filed and pending appeals should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the revenue should not have filed the instant appeal.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which mandated withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had applied to withdraw the appeal due to a low tax effect as per CBDT circulars. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Revenue Department submitted an application to withdraw the appeals due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals did not fall under any exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Department should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The circular mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 20 lakhs, was applicable to the present case. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which raised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs, was applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT. The appeals were dismissed based on this circular.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals did not fall under any exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Revenue Department applied to withdraw the appeal due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application.
The Tribunal held that the amended circular was not applicable to the facts of the case and that the original circular No. 3/18, which revised the monetary limit to Rs. 20,00,000/-, was operative. The Tribunal found that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the circular.
The Revenue Department applied to withdraw the appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal application.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly held that the assessee was not in default as deductees had complied with the law and PANs were available, making the invocation of Section 206AA inappropriate.
The Tribunal held that the provision for bad and doubtful debts, as per Section 36(1)(viia), is allowable for banks. The quantum of such provision, based on rural advances and income, needs to be computed separately for each component within the prescribed limits.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1)(a) is applicable even if the assessee's accounts are rejected, as the provision deals with the remission or cessation of a trading liability previously allowed as a deduction. The fact that the liability was discharged in cash in a subsequent year was considered immaterial.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT instructions for appeals to the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. This was in accordance with CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable considering the complex and debatable nature of the issue, and the lack of independent reasoning by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal observed that the orders of the authorities below had already been set aside.
The Tribunal held that the taxability of the sum depended on the basic facts of the transfer of the gas agency, which were yet unascertained. The onus was on the assessee to prove the transaction, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT instructions for filing appeals before the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The ITAT held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lacs prescribed by CBDT instructions for appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable. This was based on CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018, which stipulates a monetary limit for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018. This instruction is binding on the department and applies retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit as per Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and the relevant CBDT instructions.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018. The Ld. DR also agreed with this position.