Loading ITAT cases…
665 orders · Page 1 of 14
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) admitted additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to respond, violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and considering that the title and risk passed offshore, no portion of the profits from offshore supplies is taxable in India. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court on similar matters.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the enhanced monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The circular clearly states that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is less than the specified limit.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had granted a very short adjournment, which prevented the assessee from substantiating their claim. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable as no incriminating material was unearthed during the search. The Tribunal affirmed the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) based on the Delhi High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the enhanced monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to rent expenditure and sundry creditors. However, issues concerning mutual fund investments were remanded back to the AO for proper adjudication due to duplication in AIR information.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and considering that the title and risk passed offshore, no portion of the profits from offshore supplies is taxable in India. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court on similar matters.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) on a specific date to present their case and cooperate in the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and considering that the title and risk passed offshore, no portion of the profits from offshore supplies is taxable in India. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court on similar matters.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that if the amount of Rs. 10,60,647/- represents opening credit balances, it cannot be added under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The matter was remanded for factual verification.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) granted a very short adjournment, preventing the assessee from substantiating their claim. The assessee's counsel undertook to cooperate with the CIT(A) for a speedy disposal.
The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to rent expenditure and sundry creditors. However, issues concerning mutual fund investments were remanded back to the AO for proper adjudication due to duplication in AIR information.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, applies to all pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable due to insufficient tax effect.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and considering that the title and risk passed offshore, no portion of the profits from offshore supplies is taxable in India. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court on similar matters.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 were invalid as they did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated under. Consequently, the penalties were cancelled.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and considering that the title and risk passed offshore, no portion of the profits from offshore supplies is taxable in India. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court on similar matters.