Loading ITAT cases…
309 orders · Page 2 of 7
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn, following the CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.
The Tribunal held that for Section 14A disallowance, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered. The issue of export promotion expenditure was remanded for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss under Section 72A was upheld.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn, following the CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification. The AO needs to ascertain if the Rs. 25 lakhs was considered in the computation of capital gains for AY 2007-08. If not, it should be considered for AY 2005-06.
The Tribunal held that for Section 14A disallowance, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered. The issue of export promotion expenditure was remanded for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss under Section 72A was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which instructs to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs, is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal could not proceed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that liberalized the policy for not filing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal held that the issues regarding remuneration and depreciation on Kalwa assets required fresh examination by the AO due to lack of sufficient details. The issues of bad debts and sundry balances were remitted back to the AO to consider the ITAT's prior directions and provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that liberalized the policy on not filing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal held that legal expenditure incurred to protect the business is allowable as revenue expenditure. It also restored the matter for computing disallowance under Section 14A based on investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for security charges and rent was correct based on Supreme Court precedent. However, the issue regarding the provision for bad debts was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination due to unclear calculations. The disallowance for provision for wages was also confirmed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that liberalized the policy for not filing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal held that legal expenditure incurred to protect the business is allowable as revenue expenditure. It also restored the matter for computing disallowance under Section 14A based on investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that legal expenditure incurred to protect the business is allowable as revenue expenditure. For additions under Section 14A, the matter was restored to the AO to consider only investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for security charges and rent was correct based on Supreme Court precedent. However, the issue regarding the provision for bad debts was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination due to unclear calculations. The disallowance for provision for wages was also confirmed.
The Tribunal held that legal expenditure incurred to protect the business is allowable as revenue expenditure. It also restored the matter for computing disallowance under Section 14A based on investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for agricultural income based on a previous year's decision. For other issues, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings or directed further verification.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition of ₹.50 lakhs in a connected case was pending before the CIT(A), the protective addition in the assessee's case should also be remitted for fresh adjudication. The jewellery investment issue was also remitted.
The Tribunal, to meet the ends of justice, directed the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard and adjudicate the issues afresh. However, if the assessee fails to avail this opportunity, the previous ex-parte order will stand confirmed.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that while the genuineness of the claim was not disputed, the assessee could not produce official receipts for all payments. The CIT(A) provided reasonable relief.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2008-09, directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 10B by permitting the set-off of Keyman insurance against director's remuneration. For AY 2009-10, the appeal was dismissed as fresh grounds unrelated to the Tribunal's prior directions were raised.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the books of accounts and estimating income was impermissible, especially when incriminating materials were found but not properly utilized. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty under Section 271A was deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee was not engaged in a specified business requiring specific books.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for agricultural income based on a previous year's decision. For other issues, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings or directed further verification.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for agricultural income based on a previous year's decision. For other issues, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings or directed further verification.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for agricultural income based on a previous year's decision. For other issues, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings or directed further verification.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for agricultural income based on a previous year's decision. For other issues, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings or directed further verification.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the books of accounts and estimating income was impermissible, especially when incriminating materials were found but not properly utilized. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty under Section 271A was deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee was not engaged in a specified business requiring specific books.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the books of accounts and estimating income was impermissible, especially when incriminating materials were found but not properly utilized. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty under Section 271A was deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee was not engaged in a specified business requiring specific books.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the books of accounts and estimating income was impermissible, especially when incriminating materials were found but not properly utilized. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty under Section 271A was deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee was not engaged in a specified business requiring specific books.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the books of accounts and estimating income was impermissible, especially when incriminating materials were found but not properly utilized. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty under Section 271A was deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee was not engaged in a specified business requiring specific books.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the books of accounts and estimating income was impermissible, especially when incriminating materials were found but not properly utilized. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty under Section 271A was deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee was not engaged in a specified business requiring specific books.
The Tribunal held that a legitimate claim should not be rejected due to a human error in filing. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee earned no exempt income, the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. It also held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the books of accounts and estimating income was impermissible, especially when incriminating materials were found but not properly utilized. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty under Section 271A was deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee was not engaged in a specified business requiring specific books.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, following CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which mandates not pressing appeals with a tax effect below ₹.50,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment of long-term capital gains without proper substantiation. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal summarily for lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be applied in the absence of any exempt income, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the validity of reopening.
The Tribunal followed CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal followed CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal followed CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.