Loading ITAT cases…
171 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals. It also held that the ex parte disposal by the CIT(Appeals) was not justified as the assessee's representative could not appear due to illness, and set aside the orders to provide another opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20.00 lakhs. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that since the services were rendered outside India by non-residents with no permanent establishment or business connection in India, the income was not taxable in India, and thus, no tax deduction was required.
The Tribunal held that if the loss of the non-eligible unit was already set off, there was no need to set it off again. However, this claim needed verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that if the loss of the non-eligible unit was already set off, there was no need to set it off again. However, this claim needed verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that if the loss of the non-eligible unit was already set off, there was no need to set it off again. However, this claim needed verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that since the services were rendered outside India by non-residents with no permanent establishment or business connection in India, the income was not taxable in India, and thus, no tax deduction was required.
The Tribunal held that if the loss of the non-eligible unit was already set off, there was no need to set it off again. However, this claim needed verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission, noting that the tax effect in all appeals was below the Rs. 20 lakhs limit set by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission, noting that the tax effect in all appeals was below the Rs. 20 lakhs limit set by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities relied on reports and statements without providing them to the assessee for rebuttal, violating principles of natural justice. The issue requires reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities relied on reports and statements that were not provided to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue of whether the capital gains were real or sham required reconsideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. Following this circular, the Tribunal held that the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. Following this circular, the Tribunal held that the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to prove the genuineness of the donations and to cross-examine the evidence against them. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was less than ₹20 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was less than ₹20 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was less than ₹20 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was less than ₹20 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the commission paid to overseas agents for procuring export orders did not constitute fee for technical services and thus, TDS was not deductible. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the CBDT's Circular No.3/2018, which set a monetary limit of Rs.20 lakhs for appeals to the Tribunal. The tax effect in this case was below this limit.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission. The CBDT circular specified a monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs for filing appeals before the Tribunal, and the tax effect in this case was below that limit.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is less than ₹20 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Department.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to prove the genuineness of the donations and to cross-examine the evidence against them. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the services rendered involved making available technical knowledge, skill, and know-how, thus falling under 'fee for included services' as per the India-US DTAA. The alternative plea regarding Section 90(2) was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that an admission alone, without corroborative evidence, is not sufficient to sustain an addition. Since the Revenue failed to provide any supporting material, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities relied on reports and statements without providing them to the assessee for rebuttal, violating principles of natural justice. The issue of whether the capital gains were real or sham requires reconsideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. Following this circular, the Tribunal held that the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the ledger account showed a mixing of transactions between the assessee and M/s. Skylift Cargo (P) Ltd. Considering the account in its totality, the debit balance was between M/s. Embassy Tours & Travels (P) Ltd and M/s. Skylift Cargo (P) Ltd, not the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities relied on investigation reports and statements without providing them to the assessee for rebuttal. Therefore, the issue requires reconsideration by the Assessing Officer, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that if the payee had included the interest in its returned income and paid taxes, the payer cannot be deemed in default. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain if M/s. Reliance Capital Ltd had included the interest in its income and paid taxes, and to proceed accordingly.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than the specified limit. The Departmental Representative also agreed that pending appeals below the tax limit should be withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. The fault of the Authorized Representative should not penalize the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities' denial of exemption was not based on sufficient evidence and that the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or present their case properly. The issue was therefore remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the statements and investigation reports relied upon by the lower authorities were not provided to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue of whether the capital gains claim was genuine or bogus requires reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the statements and investigation reports relied upon by the lower authorities were not provided to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The issue of whether the transactions were real or sham requires re-examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities relied on reports and statements not provided to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the transactions were real or sham required reconsideration. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, including providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and explain evidence against them.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities relied on reports and statements without providing them to the assessee for rebuttal. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue of exemption for long-term capital gains on equity shares. This reconsideration must adhere to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities' denial of exemption was not supported by sufficient evidence and that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or present their case. The issue was therefore remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is less than ₹20 lakhs. The Tribunal held that this circular is binding on the Department.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it noted that the tax effect was less than ₹20 lakhs, and as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, such appeals should be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No.3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is less than ₹20 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Department.
The Tribunal held that since the AO's remand report supported the assessee on both issues after verification, the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) were liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No.3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is less than ₹20 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Department.