Loading ITAT cases…
609 orders · Page 8 of 13
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no additions can be made for completed assessments. The decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla was followed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) neither accepted nor rejected the additional evidence filed by the assessee and upheld the addition without proper consideration. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided various grounds, partly allowing some appeals for statistical purposes. Specifically, it restored the matter to the AO for verification of TDS credit and for allowing enhanced deduction under Section 36(1)(viiia). The Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The instructions from the CBDT circular are binding on income-tax authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the unrectified defect in the appeal fee. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if they cure the defect.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, following the CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objections were rendered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, noting that the issue of disallowance of running and maintenance expenses for vehicles used by employees was covered by previous ITAT and High Court decisions in the assessee's own case. These decisions held that such expenses are not disallowable as personal use.
The Tribunal held that the assessee and the TPO erred in clubbing transactions under the 'Indenting' and 'Trading' models. It was decided that transactions under these distinct business models must be benchmarked separately. The matter was remitted to the AO/TPO for separate processing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the gifts from his parents. Furthermore, it noted that a bank passbook is not considered a 'book of accounts' for the purpose of Section 68, making the addition legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal decided various grounds, partly allowing some appeals for statistical purposes. Specifically, it restored the matter to the AO for verification of TDS credit and for allowing enhanced deduction under Section 36(1)(viiia). The Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions on account of advances for plot bookings, finding them to be properly sourced. However, the disallowance of commission expenses was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that merely because a claim made by the assessee was not accepted by the revenue due to legal interpretation, it does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had disclosed all relevant information in its return.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals where orders have not yet been passed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the assessment for the assessment year 2003-04 was invalid as it fell outside the six assessment years preceding the search, as stipulated by Section 153A(1)(b). Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed on this legal ground.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, following the CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objections were rendered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, following the CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objections were rendered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment for the assessment year 2003-04 was invalid as it fell outside the six assessment years preceding the search, as stipulated by Section 153A(1)(b). Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed on this legal ground.
The Tribunal decided various grounds, partly allowing some appeals for statistical purposes. Specifically, it restored the matter to the AO for verification of TDS credit and for allowing enhanced deduction under Section 36(1)(viiia). The Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to consistent non-representation and the appeal being time-barred. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
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 AO failed to establish any case against the assessee. The persons whose statements formed the basis of the addition denied any dealings with the assessee during cross-examination, and no corroborative evidence was found.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per the binding instructions under Section 268A. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without considering the merits of the case.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the ground that the tax effect did not exceed the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular, making the appeal not maintainable.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1.94 crore under Section 68, holding that the assessee had established the identity and source of capital contribution of the AOP members. The CIT(A) also upheld the rejection of books under Section 145(3) but restricted the GP addition to Rs. 30 lac.
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, which supported the CIT(A)'s order, was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed these appeals given the CBDT's instructions and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, which mandate withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that the Department 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. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal without going into the merits of the case.
The ITAT noted that the appeal was covered by the CBDT circular and that the Revenue wished to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was covered by the CBDT circular due to the low tax effect. The revenue's representative submitted that the appeal was withdrawn. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular for filing appeals. The Revenue requested to withdraw the appeal, which was granted.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. F. No. 279/Misc.142/207 ITJ(Pt) dated 10th December, 2015. The Revenue requested to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee is a statutory liability and does not form part of the income. Following its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case for a preceding assessment year, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed these appeals given the CBDT's instructions and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, which mandate withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit.
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 appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
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. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue ought not to have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Following the CBDT circular and Section 268A, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a commission agent for indenting transactions and a trader for buy-sell transactions, and these should be benchmarked separately. The Tribunal found insufficient information to determine ALP separately for each model.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order under Section 154 was invalid as the original issue was already decided by the CIT(A) and merged with their order. Furthermore, interest under Section 234B cannot be charged on tax liability arising from retrospective amendments, as the assessee could not have foreseen such liability.
The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed these appeals given the CBDT's instructions and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, which mandate withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed these appeals given the CBDT's instructions and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, which mandate withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed these appeals given the CBDT's instructions and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, which mandate withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed these appeals given the CBDT's instructions and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, which mandate withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed these appeals given the CBDT's instructions and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, which mandate withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the fact that the tax effect did not exceed the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular, making the appeals not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to directors up to 3% of turnover is allowable, as per previous years' orders and High Court decisions. However, the claim for 4% commission was not allowed due to lack of justification and inconsistent pleadings.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1.94 crore under Section 68, holding that the assessee had established the identity and source of capital contribution of the AOP members. The CIT(A) also upheld the rejection of books under Section 145(3) but restricted the GP addition to Rs. 30 lac.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue ought not to have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per Section 268A and the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.