Loading ITAT cases…
717 orders · Page 14 of 15
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. No exceptions were brought to the notice of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee adequate opportunity. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circulars which stipulated monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed. This was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals, as per CBDT Circulars.
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 Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below this limit.
The tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Ld. DR could not provide any exceptions to the circular.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to frame assessments under Section 153C/153A due to the absence of incriminating material belonging to the assessee. The assessment for AY 2012-13 was also quashed as it should have been framed under Section 153C.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, citing CBDT circulars. The assessees' appeals were dismissed as infructuous because the consequential assessment orders had been accepted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to frame assessments under Section 153C/153A due to the absence of incriminating material belonging to the assessee. The assessment for AY 2012-13 was also quashed as it should have been framed under Section 153C.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the Revenue did not press it due to the low tax effect, which fell below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT circulars. The appeal was also deemed not maintainable on these grounds.
The Tribunal held that gains from sale of shares should be treated as short-term capital gains eligible for taxation under Section 111A, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The addition on account of STT was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the identity of the parties and the genuineness of the transactions were proved, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for payments made by self-cheque was not sustainable. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Departmental Representative also did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on working capital adjustment and the exclusion of a comparable company due to high related party transactions. The Tribunal also directed that adjustments should be limited to international transactions and re-examined another comparable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, which was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, as per the CBDT Circular. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that gains from sale of shares should be treated as short-term capital gains eligible for taxation under Section 111A, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The addition on account of STT was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 8 lakhs, finding the assessee's explanation for the cash payment unsubstantiated. The timing of the garage sale agreement and the lack of corroborating evidence for the cash receipt were critical factors.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the additional evidence and decide the issues after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular 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 for capital gains tax to be levied, there must be a transfer of a capital asset in the previous year. The definition of 'transfer' under Section 2(47)(v) includes allowing possession in part performance of a contract.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the business of money lending, as evidenced by borrowing and lending activities with interest. Since the interest income was taxed as business income, the interest expenditure was allowable as a business expense, and disallowance under Section 14A or Section 57(iii) was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had filed an original return and no incriminating material was found during the search, the addition made under section 153A was not justified. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, citing CBDT circulars. The assessees' appeals were dismissed as infructuous because the consequential assessment orders had been accepted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. The Departmental Representative also did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, held that the appeal filed by the revenue was to be dismissed. This was due to the tax effect being below the stipulated monetary limit for appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs specified in the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that advertisement expenditure incurred year after year to keep products fresh in the public's mind cannot be considered as giving enduring benefit. Therefore, it cannot be treated as a capital asset.
The tribunal noted that the CBDT circular clarifies its applicability to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The Learned DR could not provide any exceptions to this circular.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to frame assessments under Section 153C/153A due to the absence of incriminating material belonging to the assessee. The assessment for AY 2012-13 was also quashed as it should have been framed under Section 153C.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, citing CBDT circulars. The assessees' appeals were dismissed as infructuous because the consequential assessment orders had been accepted.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeals were not maintainable as per CBDT Circulars which set monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue did not press the appeals in light of these circulars.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs specified in the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit specified by the CBDT. The circular also clarified that it applies to all pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the claim of depreciation for an educational trust cannot be disallowed on the ground of double benefit, especially when computing income for the purpose of Section 11 of the Act. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be in line with established legal principles.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable in view of the CBDT circulars which stipulated monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue's representative did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Departmental Representative also did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect and the applicability of the CBDT circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard, accept evidence, and consider submissions.
The Tribunal set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard, accept evidence, and consider submissions.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, citing CBDT circulars. The assessees' appeals were dismissed as infructuous because the consequential assessment orders had been accepted.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeals were not maintainable as per CBDT Circulars which stipulated monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue did not press the appeals in light of these circulars.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeals were not maintainable as per CBDT Circulars which stipulated a monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeals in light of these circulars.
The Tribunal set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee, accept evidence, and consider submissions.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circulars specify monetary limits for departmental appeals, which were enhanced to Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the tax effect was below this limit and no exceptions applied, the Revenue did not press the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeals were not maintainable as per CBDT Circulars which set monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue did not press the appeals in light of these circulars.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold limit specified in CBDT circulars. The Revenue did not press the appeal.