Loading ITAT cases…
296 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This decision was also supported by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This decision was also supported by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This decision was also supported by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This decision was also supported by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This decision was also supported by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This decision was also supported by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This decision was also supported by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This decision was also supported by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This decision was also supported by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This decision was also supported by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This decision was also supported by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This decision was also supported by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This decision was also supported by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw such appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw such appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw such appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw such appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw such appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw such appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw such appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw such appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw such appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable in light of the CBDT circulars and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd. The circulars liberalized the policy for not filing appeals where the tax effect is below specified thresholds.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs, is binding on the Revenue's officers. Therefore, the appeals could not proceed.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw such appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was non-maintainable in light of the CBDT circular and the concession made by both parties. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs, and the CBDT circular instructed officers to withdraw such appeals. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue cannot proceed with appeals below this monetary limit.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue could not proceed with such appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Tribunal held that the Revenue could not proceed with such appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw such appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw such appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Revenue's officers and therefore, the appeal cannot be proceeded with. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these cases was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw such appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee earned no dividend income. The assessee's appeals regarding the classification of rental income were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. This decision was also supported by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for appeals is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with appeals where the tax effect is below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue, following the CBDT circular which mandates not to file or press appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/-. The related cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable in light of the CBDT circulars and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd. The circulars liberalized the policy for not filing appeals where the tax effect is below specified thresholds.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions for loan repayment without valid reasons, and that additions for unexplained investments could not be sustained if not based on incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot reject the assessee's method of accounting solely because it resulted in lower profits or a lower closing stock valuation. The AO must demonstrate defects in the accounting method itself, not just disagree with the outcome.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee's ill-health, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to defend their appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions for loan repayment without valid reasons, and that additions for unexplained investments could not be sustained if not based on incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions for loan repayment without valid reasons, and that additions for unexplained investments could not be sustained if not based on incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be applied in a vacuum, i.e., in the absence of any exempt income. Therefore, no disallowance can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee's ill-health, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to defend their appeals before the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the defective affidavit and the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars and Supreme Court pronouncements.