Loading ITAT cases…
609 orders · Page 12 of 13
The Tribunal held that 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of the Income Tax Act, mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the income-tax authorities and mandates that appeals with a tax effect below the specified limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates that departmental appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed before the ITAT. The dismissal was without prejudice to the Revenue's right to pursue similar issues in future years if the tax effect exceeds the limit.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's instructions, issued under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, are 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 Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed or should have withdrawn the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case, citing the low tax effect and the CBDT Circular. The Tribunal clarified that this dismissal would not create a precedent for future appeals with a higher tax effect.
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 infructuous.
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 appeal was not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulates that departmental appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed before the ITAT. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular and Section 268A(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal clarified that this dismissal would not set a precedent for future years if the tax effect exceeds the limit.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Section 268A(1) of the Income-tax Act. The decision was not to be considered a precedent on merits for future appeals with higher tax effects.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as it did not meet the monetary limit for appeals as per CBDT circular. Consequently, the assessee's Cross Objection was also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition. While acknowledging that the assessee's sales necessitated purchases, the Tribunal agreed that the accommodation entries were used to inflate purchases or suppress profits. The CIT(A)'s method of applying the GP rate of the assessee's manufacturing operations to the entire sales was also upheld.
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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, is binding on income-tax authorities. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below the prescribed limit, the Revenue should not have filed or should have withdrawn the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the primary object of the federation is to promote athletics and sports, which falls under the definition of charitable purpose under Section 2(15). The receipt of recognition fees is incidental and does not negate the charitable nature of the organization.
The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not examined the additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the donors' accounts. Therefore, the Tribunal drew an inference that the cash gifts were proper and deleted the additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. The AO's method of recalculating closing stock was found to be arbitrary, lacking valid reasons for the net profit rate and excluding other expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition. The CIT(A) found that the electricity bills, even though in different names, pertained to the same factory premises and were thus attributable to the assessee's business. The AO had incorrectly considered purchases as electricity expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the primary object of the federation is to promote athletics and sports, which falls under the definition of charitable purpose under Section 2(15). The receipt of recognition fees is incidental and does not negate the charitable nature of the organization.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account was arbitrary as the purported defects in cash book entries had no nexus with the trading results and audited accounts. It also found no basis for the 3% net profit estimation and deleted the addition. The Tribunal further deleted the addition on account of unsecured loan, finding no evidence of payment or cessation of liability.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for recall of the order upon showing sufficient cause for absence.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 cannot be made in the hands of conduit companies. This decision was based on the binding order of the Settlement Commission and directions issued under Section 144A, which indicated that such transactions should be taxed in the hands of beneficiaries and S.K. Gupta.
The Tribunal agreed that audit fees are allowable as a statutory obligation. However, it restored the matter of disallowance for rates and taxes and miscellaneous expenses to the AO for a specific finding on whether they pertained to the retail division.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of agricultural income to the CIT(A) for re-examination due to insufficient evidence and improper admission of additional evidence. Regarding gifts, the Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(v) was not applicable for the assessment year and confirmed the deletion of the larger gift amount while reversing the deletion of a smaller gift amount.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the appeals were treated as un-admitted.
The Tribunal, relying on CBDT Circular No. F. No. 279/ Misc.142/207 ITJ(Pt) dated 10th December, 2015, which mandates withdrawal/not pressing of pending appeals below a certain tax effect limit, dismissed 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. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection became academic.
The Tribunal held that the department ought not to have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the department's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, issued under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below Rs. 10,00,000/-. This circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Department should not have filed the appeal as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the rejection order was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the prescribed six months. It further held that since the assessee's registration under Section 12A was subsisting and not withdrawn, the approval under Section 80G could not be denied.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue ought not to have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The circular mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/-.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, deleting the penalty. It was held that the excess depreciation claim was made under a bonafide belief based on a newspaper report, and the capital subsidy issue was debatable. In both instances, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue ought not to have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per Section 268A and CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. The dismissal was based on the CBDT circular and not on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in the assessee's own case for AY 2006-07. The expenses were considered revenue in nature and not capital.
The Tribunal held that the Department should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding instructions from the CBDT. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Revenue were covered by a previous order in the assessee's own case for the prior assessment year. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal held that the department ought not to have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per Section 268A and CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeals due to the low tax effect, as per Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 which mandates not filing appeals before the ITAT if the tax effect is below Rs. 10,00,000/-. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue ought not to have filed the appeal in view of Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which stipulated monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue because the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. The dismissal was not to be considered a precedent for subsequent years with a higher tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeals due to the low tax effect, as per Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the gift from the mother was sufficiently explained with evidence of land sale and agricultural income, reversing the addition for that amount. For the gift from the father, a portion was explained, and the addition was confirmed for the balance. The loans from children were not adequately substantiated, and the addition was confirmed.