Loading ITAT cases…
1,454 orders · Page 22 of 30
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in dispute was below the enhanced monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals do not survive for consideration due to the revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn/not pressed without going into their merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide any material to show the appeals were protected by exceptions to the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the revised CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide any material to show exceptions to the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn/not pressed and dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide any material to show exceptions to the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn/not pressed and dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide any material to show exceptions to the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn/not pressed and dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide any material to show exceptions to the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn/not pressed and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the revised CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals do not survive for consideration due to the revised monetary limits specified in the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the revised CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed, as their filing was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding enhanced monetary limits. The Revenue is at liberty to approach for recall if the tax effect is higher or exceptions apply.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the revised CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits. Consequently, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide any material to show the appeals were protected by exceptions to the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department to the Tribunal to Rs. 50 lakhs. As the tax effect in these appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limits specified by the CBDT. The Revenue did not present any material to show the appeals were protected by exceptions.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide any material to show the appeals were protected by exceptions to the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals do not survive for consideration due to the revised monetary limits specified in the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of sundry creditors was not justified as the assessee's purchases and sales were accepted, books were not rejected, and similar creditors were accepted in subsequent years. The Tribunal also directed deletion of addition for unverifiable freight expenses and restricted the disallowance for low household withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that since the foreign agents had no Permanent Establishment or business activities in India and rendered services outside India, no income arose to them in India. Therefore, TDS was not deductible under Section 195, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit specified by the CBDT. The appeal was dismissed in accordance with the CBDT's instructions.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limit for filing appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000 are to be treated as withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and the respondent's lack of objection. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- related to unexplained investment in land purchase, finding no evidence to support the on-money payment allegation. It also deleted the addition of Rs. 4,08,000/- related to cash deposited in the lender's account, as the loan was proved to be genuine.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed as non-maintainable based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal first addressed the issue of limitation. Citing the affidavit filed by the assessee's director, which detailed reasons such as the ill health of directors, ongoing legal proceedings due to financial defaults, and staff changes, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and admitted the appeal. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed a speaking order. After perusing the materials on record and hearing the Ld. DR, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal explicitly stated that no material was brought before it to persuade it to take a different view. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee would be at liberty to approach the ITAT for restoration of the appeals in accordance with Proviso to Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, if so advised. The specific findings on the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) regarding interest-free deposits, share application money, and unsecured loans were not elaborated upon by the ITAT, as it relied entirely on the CIT(A)'s order. The ratio decidendi is that if no new material is presented to the Tribunal to challenge the findings of the lower appellate authority, and the lower appellate authority's order is considered speaking, the Tribunal will not interfere.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the AO's adoption of a 15% GP rate was unsustainable without comparable data and directed its deletion. It restored the issue of partner salaries to the AO for verification of the partnership deed. The disallowance for rebates, discounts, and sales promotion was restricted to 10%, and the additional sales tax issue was remitted to the AO for examination.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Revenue would not prefer appeals before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in the instant appeals was below Rs. 50 lakhs, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were illegal as the Assessing Officer failed to apply his independent mind and relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order became void.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as the AO did not apply his independent mind and relied on borrowed satisfaction from the Investigation Wing. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal on the issue of written-off TDS was allowed by the Tribunal, the very basis for imposing the penalty no longer survives. Therefore, the penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order is invalid because the notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of clarity and the discrepancy between initiation and levy rendered the penalty bad in law.
The ITAT noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 50 Lakhs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred on an abandoned project should be allowed as revenue expenditure, following the decisions of the Madras High Court and Delhi High Court. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order allowing these expenses.
The Tribunal held that a revised return filed under Section 139(5) is valid for claiming losses, provided it is filed within the prescribed time and arises from an omission or wrong statement in the original return. The original return is substituted by the revised return for assessment purposes.
The ITAT noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 50 Lakhs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment on account of outstanding receivables was uncalled for, as the delay in receipt was not inordinate and the assessee had a consistent practice of not charging interest on delayed remittances from both related and unrelated parties. For the AMP expenses, the Tribunal directed deletion of the adjustment, following a similar decision in another appeal.
The ITAT, following CBDT Circulars and a prior ITAT decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was made on a protective basis and the commission income was already taxed in the hands of the employer, the assessee should not be taxed on the commission.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the notice was not properly served to the assessee and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merit. The assessee was directed to rectify the defects in the appeal memo within 30 days.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs are not maintainable.