Loading ITAT cases…
808 orders · Page 14 of 17
The ITAT held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue to Rs. 20 lakhs, the pending appeals with a tax effect below this limit are to be dismissed.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the material. The assessee's contention that the appeal was decided ex-parte without a reasonable opportunity of being heard was noted.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee invoking Article 27 of the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) of the DTAA.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated not pressing appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of unexplained jewellery could not be sustained. It followed a previous decision where similar facts and explanations were accepted, considering the family's status and customary practices.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the condition of an undertaking not being formed by splitting up or reconstruction of a business already in existence, as stipulated in Section 80-IC(4)(i), is a condition that needs to be established only in the initial year of claiming the deduction. The Tribunal drew an analogy from the Supreme Court's decision in DCIT vs. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. regarding Section 80-IB. It reasoned that while certain conditions, like the nature of the article manufactured, need to be fulfilled year-on-year, the condition regarding the formation of the undertaking is a one-time check. In the present case, the initial year for claiming deduction under Section 80-IC was AY 2010-11. The assessee first claimed the deduction in AY 2011-12 and it was allowed in AY 2012-13. Since the assessment order for AY 2013-14 was the third year of claim, and the eligibility condition of setting up a new unit was not disputed in the initial years, the AO was not obligated to re-examine it. Consequently, the assessment order could not be deemed erroneous, and the Pr. CIT's invocation of Section 263 powers was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is applicable to pending appeals and directs the Department to withdraw or not press appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed limit. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The ITAT held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue to Rs. 20 lakhs, the pending appeals with a tax effect below this limit are to be dismissed.
The ITAT held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue to Rs. 20 lakhs, the pending appeals with a tax effect below this limit are to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is applicable to pending appeals and directs the Department to withdraw or not press appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed limit. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D is applicable from AY 2008-09. It further held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be computed only on investments yielding exempt income. For interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), the AO needs to demonstrate the use of interest-bearing funds for investments.
The Tribunal noted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted in a separate appeal. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled as its foundation no longer existed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no independent evidence to support the financing transaction. The additions were deleted as they were based on retracted statements without corroboration.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding tax effect limits. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The ITAT held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue to Rs. 20 lakhs, the pending appeals with a tax effect below this limit are to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is applicable to pending appeals and directs the Department to withdraw or not press appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed limit. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The ITAT held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue to Rs. 20 lakhs, the pending appeals with a tax effect below this limit are to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue did not press these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 for preferring appeals. The Circular was binding on tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under section 274(1) is a jurisdictional defect that vitiates the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b). The principles of natural justice were also violated as the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under section 274(1) is a jurisdictional defect that vitiates the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b). The principles of natural justice were also violated as the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under section 274(1) is a jurisdictional defect that vitiates the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b). The principles of natural justice were also violated as the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unsustainable because no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee, denying them an opportunity to be heard. The non-issuance of this notice is a jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding instructions of the CBDT Circular. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, directed the Department not to press appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the bills/vouchers were in the partner's name, not the firm's. Following a similar decision for the preceding assessment year, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation regarding non-service of notice. It was decided that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the failure to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed that mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the failure to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed that mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including confirmations from investors and their financial statements, and that the AO failed to conduct further necessary inquiries. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the failure to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed that mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording satisfaction.