Loading ITAT cases…
924 orders · Page 5 of 19
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had not properly considered the assessee's objects and the documentary evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that no ad-hoc disallowance could be made without specific instances of inflated or capital expenditure. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable if no exempt income was earned during the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that no ad-hoc disallowance could be made without specific instances of inflated or capital expenditure. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable if no exempt income was earned during the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that no ad-hoc disallowance could be made without specific instances of inflated or capital expenditure. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable if no exempt income was earned during the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that no ad-hoc disallowance could be made without specific instances of inflated or capital expenditure. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable if no exempt income was earned during the assessment year.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had not properly considered the assessee's objects and evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on a CBDT Circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals. The circular stated that pending appeals below the specified tax limit should be withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 292C of the IT Act regarding documents found during a search is rebuttable. Since the MOU for Rs. 20 crores was between Sh. Devender Kumar and M/s Newage Infrabuilders P. Ltd., and not directly with the assessee, the addition of Rs. 20 crores to the assessee's income was not justified without further evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) required further examination.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The circular also applied retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition of Rs. 44,50,000 as unexplained cash, finding discrepancies in the assessee's explanation. It also dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the treatment of speculative losses, following the Delhi High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was treated as application of income, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It also held that carry forward and set off of losses is permissible for charitable trusts, again relying on High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit are not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed without considering the merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the Assessing Officer cannot introduce new grounds like commercial expediency which were not considered during assessment. The Tribunal also noted that no disallowance was made in the preceding year despite similar advances and relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions regarding mixed funds.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that advance commission received for purchases accounted for in the next financial year should not be taxed in the year of receipt. It also held that amounts written off as bad debts from debtors were allowable as per Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was not sustainable in law. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior year, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that TDS was not required on advertisement expenses reimbursed to Regional Distributors as they were not advertising agencies and there was no income element. It also found no default in TDS deduction for recruitment expenses and allowed claims regarding commission to directors.
The Tribunal held that TDS was not required on advertisement expenses reimbursed to Regional Distributors as they were not advertising agencies and there was no income element. It also found no default in TDS deduction for recruitment expenses and allowed claims regarding commission to directors.
The Tribunal held that TDS was not required on advertisement expenses reimbursed to Regional Distributors as they were not advertising agencies and there was no income element. It also found no default in TDS deduction for recruitment expenses and allowed claims regarding commission to directors.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that TDS was not required on advertisement expenses reimbursed to Regional Distributors as they were not advertising agencies and there was no income element. It also found no default in TDS deduction for recruitment expenses and allowed claims regarding commission to directors.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the Assessing Officer cannot introduce new grounds like commercial expediency which were not considered during assessment. The Tribunal also noted that no disallowance was made in the preceding year despite similar advances and relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions regarding mixed funds.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for revival if the case falls under amended exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.