Loading ITAT cases…
518 orders · Page 11 of 11
The Tribunal held that since the addition under Section 68, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted in the assessee's own case by the ITAT, the penalty would not survive. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was confirmed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as dismissed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates that appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue should have withdrawn or not pressed these appeals.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, emphasizing that the right of appeal should not be snatched without sufficient opportunity. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) and pay costs.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below certain monetary limits should not be filed or should be withdrawn. The circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The CBDT instructions are binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on FDRs, which were placed as margin money for bank guarantees and funded by borrowed funds, was intrinsically linked to the business of the eligible undertaking. Therefore, netting off the interest income with interest expenditure was allowed.
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 set aside the transfer pricing adjustment issue back to the AO/TPO for re-determination of the arm's length price. It also restored the depreciation claim on leased vehicles to the AO for decision in light of a Supreme Court ruling. The addition on account of interest on sticky loans was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates that appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue should have withdrawn or not pressed these appeals.
The Tribunal set aside the transfer pricing adjustment issue back to the AO/TPO for re-determination of the arm's length price. It also restored the depreciation claim on leased vehicles to the AO for decision in light of a Supreme Court ruling. The addition on account of interest on sticky loans was directed to be deleted.
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 Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed.