Loading ITAT cases…
609 orders · Page 9 of 13
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 investment in the partnership firm was made for business expediency, as it was part of a larger group acquisition strategy. Therefore, the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. F. No. 279/ Misc.142/207 ITJ(Pt) dated 10th December, 2015. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. F. No. 279/ Misc.142/207 ITJ(Pt) dated 10th December, 2015. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was covered by the CBDT circular and was withdrawn by the Revenue. The withdrawal was not to be taken as a precedent.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This 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 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 found merit in the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable.
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 CBDT circular, issued under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below a certain monetary limit. Since the tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit, the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, issued under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, is binding on the revenue authorities. Therefore, the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal quashed the penalty order. It reasoned that since the Hon'ble High Court admitted the assessee's appeal on substantial questions of law concerning the additions, the merits of the additions became debatable, thus invalidating the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, making it not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 10,00,000, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal or should have withdrawn it, given the low tax effect. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn.
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 CBDT circular, 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 was dismissed on this ground.
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's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below a certain limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on income-tax authorities and mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals where the tax effect is below the prescribed limit. Therefore, the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting and recognized income on a percentage completion method. Brokerage and commission were considered sales incentives incurred exclusively by the assessee, not part of the cost of work accomplished, and thus allowable as expenses in the period incurred.
The Tribunal held that while the expenses were debited in the partner's books and reimbursed, the actual bills were not produced before the Assessing Officer for verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the Revenue, noting that it was covered by the CBDT circular. The withdrawal was explicitly stated not to hold as precedence.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT circular. The circular, which is binding on the Revenue, mandated withdrawal or non-pressing of pending appeals below the specified tax limits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to consistent non-representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
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 the relevant CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal found it necessary to verify the genuineness of the documents produced by the assessee. To impart substantial justice, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore, in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAA can only be levied when a search under Section 132 has been conducted. Since the assessee was subjected to a survey under Section 133A, not a search under Section 132, the penalty was not legally tenable.
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.
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 prescribed by the CBDT circular, making the appeal not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) had not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claims. The documentary evidence submitted by the assessee needed thorough examination.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in not considering the assessee's capacity utilization adjustment and also directed the removal of one comparable company (Wipro Technology Services Ltd.) due to its transaction with a third party being influenced by the associated enterprise. The matter was remitted for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the AO failed to apply his independent mind to the information received, which is a prerequisite for forming a belief that income had escaped assessment. This decision followed precedents from the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was bad in law as the issue was already examined and decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years, and there was no failure to disclose material facts. Therefore, the addition on account of notional income was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limits should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below Rs. 10,00,000, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limits should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below Rs. 10,00,000, the appeals were dismissed.