Loading ITAT cases…
103 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in Circular No. 21/2015 for filing appeals. As no exceptions applied, the circular was deemed applicable.
The Tribunal held that Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, was applicable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, was applicable in this case. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals as per Circular No. 21/2015. As no exceptions applied, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals as per Circular No. 21/2015. Since no exceptions applied, the circular was applicable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal noted that the appeals did not involve constitutional validity or issues arising from audit objections.
The Tribunal held that Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals, was applicable. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptional circumstances were brought forth, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue given the low tax effect and the CBDT circular. The Departmental Representative also admitted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals where the tax effect is below the specified monetary limit. The Revenue's representative admitted the tax effect was below the limit.
The Tribunal held that Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals, was squarely applicable. The Revenue did not provide any evidence to suggest the appeals arose from audit objections or involved undisclosed foreign assets.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals as per Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the circular was squarely applicable.
The Tribunal held that Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, was applicable. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue given the low tax effect and the CBDT circular. The Revenue's representative admitted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that in light of the CBDT circular, the appeal filed by the Revenue should not have been pressed. The Learned Departmental Representative admitted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated a specific ground raised by the assessee regarding opening balances. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on that specific ground concerning the addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue in light of the CBDT circular which specified a monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs for appeals to the Tribunal. The Learned Departmental Representative admitted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal held that Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, was applicable. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the AO gained new information during the survey, and the original return was processed under section 143(1) without forming an opinion. The addition made under 'income from other sources' was also upheld as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the claimed agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that in light of the CBDT circular and the fact that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, the Revenue should not have pressed its appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that in light of the CBDT circular and the admitted low tax effect, the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue given the low tax effect and the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue in light of the CBDT circular and the admitted low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue given the low tax effect and the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that in light of the CBDT circular and the low tax effect, the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that in light of the CBDT circular and the admitted low tax effect, the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue in light of the CBDT circular and the admitted low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue in light of the CBDT circular and the admitted low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals, was applicable. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptional circumstances were present, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Circular No. 21/2015 was applicable as the tax effect was below Rs. 10 lakhs and the appeal did not involve constitutional validity, foreign assets, or audit objections. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals as per Circular No. 21/2015. No exceptions to the circular were applicable.
The Tribunal observed that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals as per Circular No. 21/2015. No exceptions mentioned in the circular were applicable.
The Tribunal found that the AO implicitly accepted the assessee's billing and payment methodology by adding only the difference. However, the assessee failed to demonstrate the basis for apportionment of expenses by its parent company (HCDL) and reconciliation of balances.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Following the CBDT circular, the Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The Cross Objections filed by the Assessee were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the disputed issues was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, making Circular No. 21/2015 applicable. As such, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Circular No. 21/2015 is squarely applicable as the tax effect is below the prescribed limit and no exceptions mentioned in the circular apply. Therefore, the appeal and cross-objection are dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, was applicable. Therefore, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.