Loading ITAT cases…
665 orders · Page 6 of 14
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect in all the cases was less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to the circular.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Smifs Securities Ltd. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s order, declining to interfere.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect in all the cases was less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to the circular.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the assessment year, no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made. This is a well-settled principle in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals as not maintainable, citing CBDT circulars that set monetary limits for appeals. The assessee's cross objections were also dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals as not maintainable, citing CBDT circulars that set monetary limits for appeals. The assessee's cross objections were also dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals as not maintainable, citing CBDT circulars that set monetary limits for appeals. The assessee's cross objections were also dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect in all the cases was less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to the circular.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable to all pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect in all the cases was less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to the circular.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect in all the cases was less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to the circular.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable due to CBDT Circulars that set monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the AO had not brought on record any material to doubt the identity or creditworthiness of the loan creditors or to establish a link between the assessee and any 'entry operators'. The case laws relied upon by the AO were distinguished.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not establish any non-compliance with the conditions laid down in Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act or the procedural requirements. Therefore, the CIT(E) erred in denying the approval.
The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the revenue's appeal. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable because the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circulars, appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit are not maintainable. The Revenue did not press the appeals in light of these circulars.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeals were not maintainable in view of CBDT Circulars enhancing the monetary limit for filing appeals. The appeals were therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have further investigated the source of funds by examining the assessee's husband and the parties from whom loans were allegedly taken. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and this applied to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative before the CIT(A) but, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' orders, stating that no infirmity was pointed out in the Section 154 order before the CIT(A). Given the absence of the assessee's representation, no interference was deemed necessary.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) enhanced the income without proper notice and that the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections against reopening with a speaking order. Consequently, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that since the foundation for the penalty, which was the assessment order's disallowance, was removed by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty must also fall. The penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of preparing and distributing study materials, which formed part of the university's curriculum, were educational in nature. The Tribunal distinguished the case from precedents cited by the revenue and found the assessee eligible for exemption.
The Tribunal held that income from sale of investments is part of the insurance business and should not be taxed separately. It also held that disallowance of FBT provisions was not sustainable as per the Act's provisions for life insurance companies.
The Tribunal held that income from sale of investments is part of the insurance business and should not be taxed separately. It also held that disallowance of FBT provisions was not sustainable as per the Act's provisions for life insurance companies.
The Tribunal held that income from sale of investments is part of the insurance business and should not be taxed separately. It also held that disallowance of FBT provisions was not sustainable as per the Act's provisions for life insurance companies.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a charitable institution and the mere receipt of fees or charges does not automatically classify its activities as trade, commerce, or business. Following the principle of consistency and judicial precedents, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing documentary evidence, including audited financial statements and confirmations from lenders. The AO failed to rebut this evidence or conduct sufficient inquiry into the lenders' creditworthiness.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Revenue would not prefer appeals if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the tax effect in this case was below the specified limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular No. 17/2019 applies to all pending appeals, including those with a tax effect below the monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that there was a PE in India and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute profit attribution using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). It also directed that interest under Section 234B of the Act should not be charged as tax was deductible at source.
The Tribunal, in light of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing documentary evidence, including audited financial statements and confirmations from lenders. The AO failed to rebut this evidence or conduct sufficient inquiry into the lenders' creditworthiness.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was without jurisdiction because it was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and the reasons recorded did not allege failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were not sustainable because the notice issued by the AO was vague and ambiguous, failing to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO also failed to record a clear satisfaction on this aspect.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The circular revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 50,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 143(3) was rightly framed as the conditions for Section 153C were not met. The addition on account of unrecorded interest paid on PDCs was upheld, with directions for re-computation.
The Tribunal held that interest received on ECB is not taxable in India as it is not effectively connected with the Indian Permanent Establishment (PE). The Tribunal also directed the deletion of interest levied under Section 234D as the refund was adjusted against the demand.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Revenue would not prefer appeals if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should be decided as per the CBDT circular, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that work-in-progress and TDS certificates obtained after year-end could explain the discrepancies. It held that the profit element might be embedded in work-in-progress.