Loading ITAT cases…
422 orders · Page 9 of 9
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a sufficient cause for the significant delay in filing the appeals. The contradictory explanations provided by the assessee and their counsel were found to be inadequate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without proper service of notice and without deciding the appeal on merits, violating principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the IT Act. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that an assessment on a non-existent entity is a jurisdictional defect and not a procedural irregularity, making it unsustainable. The provisions of Section 292B of the Act do not cure such fundamental defects.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not properly applied his mind to the facts and had not verified the information before reopening the assessment. The reasons recorded were vague and based on suspicion rather than belief, failing to meet the requirements of Section 147.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Department shall not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a sufficient cause for the significant delay in filing the appeals. The contradictory explanations provided by the assessee and their counsel were found to be inadequate.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- are not maintainable before the Tribunal. The Revenue should have either not filed or withdrawn the appeal.
The Tribunal held that since the department did not appeal the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions and the assessee's appeal only challenged the reopening, the legal issues became infructuous. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that mobilization charges and reimbursement of expenses are to be included in the gross receipts for the purpose of Section 44BB, following the Apex Court's decision in Sedco Forex International Inc. However, it allowed the appeal on the issue of royalty payments being taxable under Section 44DA, as it was covered by a previous Tribunal order.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the income computed under Section 115JB is higher than the income computed under normal provisions and tax has been paid on the higher book profit.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the show cause notice did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated. Therefore, no penalty was leviable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is no longer interested in prosecuting the appeal due to non-appearance. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed as un-admitted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The explanation provided by the assessee and his counsel was found to be insufficient and indicative of negligence.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Following various judicial precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as un-admitted.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by reproducing a set-aside order and failing to decide the appeal afresh. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not record fresh findings of fact as directed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the Section 154 application as it was not for rectifying a mistake apparent from the record but for re-adjudicating decided issues. The earlier appeal order had become final.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is required by Section 250(6) to provide reasons for the decision, even if the assessee is absent. The dismissal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits was not sustainable.