Loading ITAT cases…
630 orders · Page 4 of 13
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by previous orders and that the Assessing Officer had subsequently verified the facts and allowed the deduction. Therefore, the Department's appeal had no merit.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal and citing relevant case law, dismissed the appeal in limine. The Tribunal, however, left open the possibility of recalling the order if the assessee could satisfy the bench for non-appearance.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present its case. The assessee was directed to appear and substantiate its claims without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case, considering the interest of justice.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, following previous orders of the Tribunal and the High Court in the assessee's own case which allowed capitalization and depreciation on such customs duty payments.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015. Consequently, the departmental appeal was deemed not maintainable on account of low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the recalled appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for filing appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to the lack of representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without a substantive hearing on its merits.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue and that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the departmental policy. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015. Consequently, the departmental appeal was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed not to seek adjournments.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the assessee's non-appearance and apparent lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the order could be recalled if the assessee could satisfy the bench for their non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s action of adopting the average GP rate of 10.58% was not justified, especially without providing reasons for not accepting the AO's 9% rate. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the GP rate of 9% instead of 10.58%.
The Tribunal held that the addition solely based on the statement of Mr. Tarun Goyal, without allowing cross-examination and without any corroborative material, cannot be sustained. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing necessary documentation.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order prematurely, before the adjourned date of hearing, denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, which violates the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that some notices were returned unserved and there was no substantiation of service for the last notice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order forming the basis of the penalty was set aside, the penalty itself could not stand. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a plausible explanation. It was held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notice and providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the recalled appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for filing appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the addition solely based on the statement of Mr. Tarun Goyal, without allowing cross-examination and without any corroborative material, cannot be sustained. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing necessary documentation.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on ad-hoc or estimated additions. Since the penalty was based on such an addition, it was not justified.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs are not maintainable. The circular also applies to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the addition solely based on the statement of Mr. Tarun Goyal, without allowing cross-examination and without any corroborative material, cannot be sustained. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing necessary documentation.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals is binding on the revenue authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit, the appeals were not maintainable.
The assessee submitted that the appeal against the section 263 order had become infructuous as a fresh assessment order was passed. Therefore, the assessee did not wish to press the appeal.
The tribunal held that e-Clerx Services Ltd. was not a comparable company due to its significant outsourcing expenditure, which differed from the assessee's business model of performing services in-house. Therefore, e-Clerx was directed to be excluded from the list of comparables.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's adjournment application without providing any reason, violating the principle of 'audi alteram partem'. Therefore, the case was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the recalled appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for filing appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that since the loans were accepted as genuine in the preceding year and interest paid was allowed, the subsequent allotment of shares against the loan amount could not be a reason to disallow the interest. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals is binding on the revenue authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the Section 14A addition, agreeing that the AO lacked proper satisfaction. The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to UPS depreciation, following jurisdictional High Court rulings. For non-compete rights, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the specific facts of the assessee and relevant case law.
The Tribunal followed the ITAT and High Court orders, which held that the license fees paid were deductible expenditure under Section 35ABB(1). The Tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal.