Loading ITAT cases…
665 orders · Page 7 of 14
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs. 50,00,000/-.
The Tribunal allowed the admission of the additional ground and found that the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealing inaccurate particulars of income. However, since the revenue had not yet adjudicated this issue, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have denied the deduction under Section 54 without examining its merits, especially when supported by documentary evidence. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were devoid of independent application of mind by the AO, merely relying on the information received from the Investigation Wing. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.
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 restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification. This was based on the assessee's submission and a certificate stating that the payees had declared the interest income and paid tax on it, making the assessee not an 'assessee in default' as per the first proviso to Section 201(1).
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the specified limit.
The Tribunal recalled its previous order, acknowledging a mistake in dismissing the appeal. However, after considering a later CBDT circular, the Tribunal ultimately dismissed the revenue's appeal again due to low tax effect.
The ITAT, in light of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The circular stated that appeals with a tax effect below a certain limit should be dismissed.
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.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. The additions were confirmed as the assessee failed to provide contrary evidence and did not appear before the Tribunal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal under Rule 24.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is a debt-free company, the ratio of a previous decision in Pegasystems Worldwide India (P) Ltd. is applicable, and no transfer pricing adjustment should be made for notional interest on outstanding receivables.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly considered the factual aspects of the case. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing him to examine the details of payments made during non-banking hours, on bank holidays, or to multiple individuals where each payment was below Rs. 20,000.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering recent judicial pronouncements and providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below this limit.
The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The circular mandates dismissal of pending appeals where the tax effect is below the specified monetary limit.
The Tribunal allowed the admission of the additional ground and found that the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealing inaccurate particulars of income. However, since the revenue had not yet adjudicated this issue, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal allowed the admission of the additional ground and found that the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealing inaccurate particulars of income. However, since the revenue had not yet adjudicated this issue, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal allowed the admission of the additional ground of appeal. It held that the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) to examine the validity of the penalty notice, considering the relevant High Court judgments.
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 allowed the admission of the additional ground of appeal, recognizing its jurisdiction to examine questions of law arising from the facts. However, since the revenue had not yet adjudicated on this issue, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal allowed the additional ground for admission. It held that the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) to examine the validity of the penalty notice, considering the issue was raised for the first time.
The Tribunal allowed the admission of the additional ground of appeal. It held that the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) to examine the validity of the penalty notice, considering the lack of clarity in its wording.
The Tribunal held that passing a penalty order in the name of a non-existent, amalgamated company is a substantive illegality, not a procedural defect. Such an order is without jurisdiction and cannot be cured by the assessee's participation in the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the interest on mobilization advance was not crystallized income and thus not taxable, especially as the issue was contentious and under arbitration. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the AO had not recorded the mandatory satisfaction required to invoke Rule 8D, following its own precedent.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as defective. The Valuation Officer's report indicated a difference of only 3.8% between the declared value and the estimated value.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not err in directing the deletion of interest under section 234B. The Tribunal emphasized the rule of consistency, noting that the revenue had not disputed similar deletions in earlier years and that the facts remained the same.
The Tribunal held that making a claim which is not sustainable in law, under a bonafide belief, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was deleted based on Supreme Court and High Court precedents.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption based on the Delhi High Court's decision in its own case, which read down the proviso to Section 2(15). It also upheld the deletion of additions on account of disputed space rent income.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption based on the Delhi High Court's decision in its own case, which read down the proviso to Section 2(15). It also upheld the deletion of additions on account of disputed space rent income.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been granted adequate opportunity of being heard by the Pr. CIT. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Pr. CIT for fresh adjudication after providing a proper hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was vague and ambiguous as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the rule of consistency due to similar facts in previous assessment years. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessee was genuinely engaged in manufacturing activities at the specified premises.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption based on the Delhi High Court's decision in its own case, which read down the proviso to Section 2(15). It also upheld the deletion of additions on account of disputed space rent income.
The Tribunal found that the bad debts were allowable as they represented short receipts due to late delivery charges, effectively a deduction on invoice price. It also noted that EPF/ESI contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return, satisfying Section 43B. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the bad debts were allowable as they represented short receipts due to late delivery charges, effectively a deduction on invoice price. It also noted that EPF/ESI contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return, satisfying Section 43B. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption based on the Delhi High Court's decision in its own case, which read down the proviso to Section 2(15). It also upheld the deletion of additions on account of disputed space rent income.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the discrepancies pointed out by the AO, including the lack of monthly stock details and physical verification. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the tax effect in each appeal was below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification, the Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable and were not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the tax effect in each appeal was below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification, the Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable and were not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted as the assessee earned no exempt income. For the investment loss, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine losses and gains scrip-wise as per RBI guidelines.
The Tribunal held that the delay in reflection on the departmental system cannot be attributed to the assessee. Since the assessee demonstrably paid the TDS on the due date and the amount was debited from their account, no interest is leviable.
The Tribunal held that the delay in reflection on the departmental system cannot be attributed to the assessee. Since the assessee demonstrably paid the TDS on the due date and the amount was debited from their account, no interest is leviable.