Loading ITAT cases…
938 orders · Page 19 of 19
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The merits of the case were not considered.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without deciding the matter on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without deciding the matter on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT instructions mandate that appeals should not be filed where the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, the departmental appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. However, it was clarified that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for re-institution of the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(A). The assessee was granted a final opportunity to submit assessment orders for subsequent years and other documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the Board Instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(E) that the trust deed was crucial for verifying the charitable nature and genuineness of activities. The appeal was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after the assessee provides all necessary documents and is given a fair hearing.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide it on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer mentioned a suo motu disallowance of Rs. 67,853 by the assessee. Considering the smallness of this amount and the alternate plea, the disallowance was restricted to the dividend earned during the year.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to record and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The tribunal acknowledged the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was violative of Section 250(6) of the IT Act as it failed to provide points for determination and reasons for the decision. The order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee has opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal is with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeals to records and treat them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the parties can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to record and treated as dismissed, subject to the dispute not being resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not adequately demonstrated certain expenditures and revenue reconciliations before the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded these issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and consideration, while granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the issuance of Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme in favor of the assessee.
The tribunal acknowledged the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the revised financial statements and return were acceptable, as the initial revenue recognition was hypothetical and not supported by actual receipt or approvals. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of a portion of foreign travel expenses due to the assessee's failure to establish a business nexus.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's circular revised the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and clarified its applicability 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 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 CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the Rs. 2 crores addition under Section 68, finding that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants were established. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the Rs. 5 Lacs addition under Section 35AC, as the donation was to an exempt entity.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeals to records and treat them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the parties can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of non-appearance without deciding the merits. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing one last opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation as the notice under Section 148 was not issued within the prescribed time. The evidence regarding dispatch of the notice was found to be unreliable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee has opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee is granted liberty to get the appeal restored if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circulars which set monetary limits for filing appeals. The Ld. DR did not press the appeal in view of these circulars.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs before the ITAT, applies to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below the enhanced limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that if the primary addition on which penalty is levied is deleted, the penalty cannot sustain. The appeal by the revenue against the deletion of penalty was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on incorrect and unsubstantiated facts, as the cash deposits per se do not constitute income and the AO failed to apply his mind to the facts. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to grant the assessee four weeks' time after disposing of objections to seek legal remedy renders the reassessment proceedings bad in law. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeal was therefore consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.