Loading ITAT cases…
717 orders · Page 15 of 15
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the issue had become debatable. The Delhi High Court had admitted the assessee's appeal on substantial questions of law concerning the transfer pricing adjustments, indicating that the matter was not settled.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular revised the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and applied it to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the Board's circulars regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
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 dismissed the Department's appeal as it was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the issue had become debatable. The Delhi High Court had admitted the assessee's appeal on substantial questions of law concerning the transfer pricing adjustments, indicating that the matter was not settled.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by entertaining evidence at the back of the AO without giving the AO an opportunity to verify it. The deletion of addition solely based on certificates about non-filing of revision was not sustainable.
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 as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. The Departmental Representative also did not press the appeal.
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 found that the ex-parte order passed by the AO was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The assessee undertook to cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) for a speedy disposal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the ex-parte order lacked proper reasoning. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
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 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 interest earned on FDRs made from unutilized funds is taxable income of the assessee in the assessment year it pertains to. The fact that the assessee offered it for taxation in a subsequent year does not absolve them of the liability for the current year.
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.