Loading ITAT cases…
527 orders · Page 3 of 11
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment petition due to the persistent defects in the appeals and the lack of seriousness in pursuing them. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if defects are cured.
The Tribunal restored the issue of inflated purchases back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, following a similar decision for the preceding assessment year. The issue of slump sale was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of various judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals was applicable. The appeal was dismissed based on the low tax effect, with a clarification that this would not set a precedent for future years with higher tax effects.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to interest on the refund of prepaid taxes as per Section 244A of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) erred in denying interest for the period the assessee was pursuing rectification applications, as interest is a statutory and non-discretionary right.
The Tribunal restored the issue of inflated purchases back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, following a similar decision for the preceding assessment year. The issue of slump sale was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of various judicial precedents.
The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10 lakh, which was made applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, read with 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of the Income Tax Act, mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000 should not be filed or should be withdrawn.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 should not have been filed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 10 lakh, and the tax effect in this case being less than that amount.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 10 lakh, which was made applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding expenses and restored the issue of disallowance of clearing and forwarding expenses and the ad-hoc disallowance of material consumed/work in progress to the AO/DRP for fresh adjudication. The issue of set-off of brought forward losses was also restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to depreciation on computers and unexplained cash credits, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning well-founded. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance of expenses, agreeing that the assessee had produced necessary documentation.
The tribunal restored the issue of a Rs. 1 lakh loan from Mr. Yashu Aggarwal back to the AO for examination. For the loan from Ms. Parul Aggarwal, Rs. 10,000 was accepted, and Rs. 15,000 addition was sustained. The disallowance of expenses was sustained to the extent of 10%.
The tribunal, noting the consistent absence of the assessee and the lack of any representation or request for time, presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found a contradiction in the CIT(A)'s reasoning for rejecting the condonation of delay. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to file a fresh condonation petition and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence and delete the additions made on account of unsecured loans. The Tribunal found no flaw in the CIT(A)'s elaborate reasoning and the evidence presented by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was based has been deleted by the ITAT, the penalty does not survive. Following the Supreme Court's decision in K.C. Builders, the penalty is liable to be cancelled.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing a CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 10 lakh. This circular was made applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-appearance and the Revenue's appeal for being non-maintainable. However, the concluding sentence states both appeals are allowed, creating a contradiction.
The Tribunal held that the international transaction was essentially job work and not a purchase and sale. It further held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was the most appropriate method for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) and that the price charged by the assessee was at ALP. The addition on account of provisions of facility, freight, and insurance was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind and were therefore invalid. Consequently, the assessment order passed pursuant to these proceedings was quashed.
The Tribunal restored the matter of unexplained credit of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- to the AO for fresh examination, citing the need to consider vital evidence. The deletion of Rs. 66,25,000/- by the CIT(A) was upheld as the advance was received in a prior assessment year and not shown as a credit.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that any concession was given by the employer in the form of accommodation. Following Supreme Court precedent, the existence of a 'concession' is a jurisdictional fact that must be proven before applying rules for perquisite valuation.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, directed the Department not to press appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 10,00,000/-. As the tax effect in this appeal was below the prescribed limit, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's method of calculating the transfer pricing adjustment was flawed and not in conformity with the prescribed methods. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's profit margin was already within the arm's length range based on comparable companies.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and that the penalty was levied based on an ITAT order that was subsequently recalled. Since the additions were ultimately deleted, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, noting that the tax effect was below the Rs. 10 lakh limit specified by the CBDT circular. The dismissal was not to be considered a precedent for future years with higher tax effects.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 10,00,000/- with retrospective effect. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits.
The Tribunal restored the matter of unexplained credit (Rs. 1.20 crore) to the AO for fresh examination due to vital evidence not being considered. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the advance received (Rs. 66.25 lakh) as it was received in a prior assessment year and was not a credit.
The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT was applicable retrospectively and binding on the revenue authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal, citing a CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 10 lakhs. The circular was made applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10,00,000/-. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits as the tax effect was below this limit.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the tax effect was below the Rs. 10 lakh limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per the binding CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular's retrospective application was also considered.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reopening of the assessment was without jurisdiction and void ab initio. This was because the reopening was based on a change of opinion by the AO, as all relevant facts were already on record during the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalty were set aside, the penalty was no longer maintainable. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, relying on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT. The circular was made applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 10,00,000/- with retrospective effect.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The decision was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals, which was found to be applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10 lakh, which was made applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in concluding the amount was taxable income. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim of refunding Rs. 43.00 lacs to the company, and if verified, to delete the addition.
The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal. It noted that the CBDT circular revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT and that such circulars are binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10 lakh was applicable retrospectively and binding on the authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the appeal was filed contrary to CBDT circular No. 21/2015, as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal, noting that the CBDT's circular revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 10 lakh, and this was applicable retrospectively. Board's instructions are binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circulars, including the one revising the monetary limit to Rs. 10,00,000/- for appeals before the Tribunal, are applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal. The circular, with retrospective effect, directed the department not to press appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10,00,000/-.
The Tribunal noted that the income tax demand for the relevant assessment year had already been deleted by a previous ITAT order. Therefore, the revenue's ground of appeal regarding the penalty no longer survived.