Loading ITAT cases…
924 orders · Page 6 of 19
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 restored the file to the CIT(A) with directions to admit the additional evidence. The CIT(A) was also instructed to adjudicate the appeal de novo after allowing the AO to rebut the evidence and the assessee to present its case.
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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the provisions for expenses were ascertained liabilities and the foreign exchange fluctuation loss was an actual, deductible expenditure. The adjustments to book profit were also deemed correctly deleted.
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 AO failed to levy penalty on a specific charge, as the assessment order mentioned 'furnishing inaccurate particulars' while the penalty order cited 'concealment of income'. This lack of clarity rendered the penalty orders invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to levy penalty on a specific charge, as the assessment order mentioned 'furnishing inaccurate particulars' while the penalty order cited 'concealment of income'. This lack of clarity rendered the penalty orders invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to levy penalty on a specific charge, as the assessment order mentioned 'furnishing inaccurate particulars' while the penalty order cited 'concealment of income'. This lack of clarity rendered the penalty orders invalid.
The Tribunal held that the primary issue was to determine whether Deepali was a member of the AOP. It directed the Assessing Officer to first decide this crucial point, providing Deepali an opportunity to be heard. If found to be a member, further assessment proceedings would follow.
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 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 appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in the CBDT Circular. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if the case fell under exceptions to the circular.
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 noted that the assessee claimed to have paid the entire consideration and his wife's name was for security/succession. Since the Assessing Officer did not address these submissions, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
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 primary issue was to determine whether Deepali was a member of the AOP. It directed the Assessing Officer to first decide this crucial point, providing Deepali an opportunity to be heard. If found to be a member, further assessment proceedings would follow.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decision for the immediately preceding assessment year. It found that the assessee's activities, including receiving sponsorship and ticket sales, were not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not sustainable if the payments were not claimed as an expense. The issue of additional land payments was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of whether the payment was claimed as an expenditure. The issue of interest on PDCs was upheld as per the CIT(A)'s direction.
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 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 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 Revenue's appeal was not covered by any exceptions to the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
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 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.