Loading ITAT cases…
609 orders · Page 11 of 13
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect involved was below Rs. 10 lakhs, as per CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was rendered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, completed assessments cannot be interfered with under Section 153A. Additions or disallowances cannot be made based on material already disclosed or known during the original assessment.
The Tribunal found that while the fall in GP rate was explained by increased costs and competition, the assessee did not produce supporting documents. The Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs. 5,00,000/- and sustained the disallowances for expenses, considering them reasonable for an individual.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy was given to encourage capital investment and upgrade the textile industry, thus constituting a capital receipt. Therefore, it should not be taxed as income.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect did not exceed the monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular, making the appeal not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence (expense details) submitted by the assessee needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, departmental appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs are not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed on this ground without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, departmental appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs are not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed on this ground without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Tribunal, is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.
Since the original assessment order was set aside for want of correct jurisdiction, the penalties levied based on that assessment cannot stand. Therefore, the penalties are deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, is binding on income-tax authorities. Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed the appeal or should have withdrawn it.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence (TRC and certificate of no PE) and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to examine the evidence and decide the disallowance afresh.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, issued under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, is binding on income-tax authorities. Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed or should have withdrawn the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue ought not to have filed the appeal given the tax effect and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's cross-objection was not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, issued under Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the payments were made directly to labourers under the supervision of 'thekedars' and not to labour contractors. Therefore, Section 194C was not applicable, and consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed. The assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Tribunal, is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as a consequence of the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs are not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the assessee's Cross Objection was rendered infructuous and also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's instructions are binding on the tax authorities. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, the Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal quashed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. This was based on a previous order of a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case where the quantum addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessees were not properly confronted with the material relied upon by the AO and CIT(A). The appeals were set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessees were not properly confronted with the material relied upon by the AO and CIT(A). The appeals were set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to the persistent failure to produce the required records. The Tribunal noted that sufficient time had been provided for the department to gather and present the documentation.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, as the tax effect involved was below Rs. 10 lakhs, in line with the CBDT instruction. Cross-objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, issued under Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect involved was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. The dismissal was based on the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income-tax Act.