Loading ITAT cases…
527 orders · Page 11 of 11
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not thoroughly examined the additional evidence filed by the assessee and had decided the appeal ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the error was inadvertent and a result of human error, not a deliberate attempt to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not meet the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it lacked specific details about opportunities provided and the reasons for the decision. The order was set aside and remanded.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not meet the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it lacked specific details about opportunities provided and the reasons for the decision. The order was set aside and remanded.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lacs for filing appeals before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.
The Tribunal held that for proceedings under Section 153C to be valid, there must be a satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the searched person. Furthermore, additions cannot be made based on material that is not incriminatory in nature.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to repeated non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 10 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the Tribunal held that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be preferred.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry during the original assessment proceedings, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the revisional order under Section 263 was invalid.
The Tribunal dismissed the quantum appeal as withdrawn. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal held that a mere disallowance in quantum proceedings does not automatically warrant penalty, and deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal dismissed the quantum appeal as withdrawn. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal held that a mere disallowance in quantum proceedings does not automatically warrant penalty, and deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal noted a previous order in a related case (Randhir Singh Bhalla & Family (HUF)) which dismissed the departmental appeal against assessing income in individual hands. Therefore, the protective assessment in the hands of the assessee as AOP was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below ₹10 lakhs should not be preferred. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below ₹10 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the Tribunal held that such appeals should not be preferred by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not applied his mind independently to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The reasons recorded were vague and not based on tangible material, making the reopening bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the revenue to withdraw the appeals based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed or may be withdrawn.
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 held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no justification for the AO's rejection of the books of accounts. Consequently, the estimation of profit and other disallowances were also set aside, and FDR interest was to be treated as business income.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, agreeing with the CIT(A) that since tax was paid on the higher deemed income under Section 115JB, the concealment under normal provisions did not lead to tax evasion and was irrelevant for penalty imposition.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Department was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Consequently, 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 the CBDT circular. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.