Loading ITAT cases…
924 orders · Page 17 of 19
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10, finding that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions. For AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, remanding the Section 14A issue for fresh adjudication and dismissing grounds related to training and club expenses.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted an inquiry and taken a pragmatic view by estimating the gross profit at 9% after considering the nature of the business. The Pr. CIT's revision under Section 263 was not justified as it amounted to substituting his opinion for that of the AO when there was no lack of inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted an inquiry and taken a pragmatic view by estimating the gross profit at 9% after considering the nature of the business. The Pr. CIT's revision under Section 263 was not justified as it amounted to substituting his opinion for that of the AO when there was no lack of inquiry.
The tribunal noted that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established legal precedent, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10, finding that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions. For AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, remanding the Section 14A issue for fresh adjudication and dismissing grounds related to training and club expenses.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals with tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10, finding that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions. For AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, remanding the Section 14A issue for fresh adjudication and dismissing grounds related to training and club expenses.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to appear without seeking any adjournment.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that once the reassessment order is quashed, the foundation for levying penalty disappears. Therefore, the penalty order should have been cancelled by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that once the reassessment order is quashed, the foundation for levying penalty disappears. Therefore, the penalty order should have been cancelled by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to repeated non-appearance. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that once the reassessment order is quashed, the foundation for levying penalty disappears. Therefore, the penalty order should have been cancelled by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted an inquiry and taken a pragmatic view by estimating the gross profit at 9% after considering the nature of the business. The Pr. CIT's revision under Section 263 was not justified as it amounted to substituting his opinion for that of the AO when there was no lack of inquiry.
The Tribunal held that once the reassessment order is quashed, the foundation for levying penalty disappears. Therefore, the penalty order should have been cancelled by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10, finding that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions. For AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, remanding the Section 14A issue for fresh adjudication and dismissing grounds related to training and club expenses.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, even if a proper response was not received from the assessee. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.