Loading ITAT cases…
85 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the concession extended by the CBDT regarding enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals applies to pending appeals as well. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for appeals is applicable to pending appeals, not just future ones. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on grounds of low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular applies to pending appeals as well.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for being below the monetary limit. The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue of the Section 40A(3) addition being remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for appeals applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed below the enhanced monetary limits are to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the concession extended by the CBDT regarding enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals applies to pending appeals as well. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition on account of deemed dividend. Regarding interest expenses, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to partly sustain the addition, finding that the assessee had not sufficiently proved the utilization of borrowed funds for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer is mandatory for proceedings under Section 153C. In the absence of such a note, the assessment orders are considered null and void.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that a mere claim by the assessee does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had disclosed material facts regarding LTCG, and the surrender of income during assessment was to buy peace, not an admission of concealment. Therefore, the AO was not justified in levying the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the concession extended by the CBDT regarding enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals applies to pending appeals as well. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issue of additions based on gifts, in the absence of incriminating material, is a mixed question of fact and law. Therefore, it cannot be decided at the Tribunal level without a prior decision by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv). The Tribunal noted that the assessee's activities were consistent with its educational objectives and that similar claims had been accepted in previous years based on the rule of consistency.
The tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for departmental appeals is applicable to pending appeals, not just future ones. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution as the assessee did not appear for the hearing. The assessee can seek revival of the appeal by showing sufficient cause for their absence.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals is applicable to pending appeals, not just future ones. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including the opening balance from the previous year's balance sheet and details of receipts and refunds, to substantiate the security deposits. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not justified.
The Tribunal admitted the post-order notification as additional evidence. Since the CIT(A) had not examined this new evidence, the cases were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal admitted the post-order notification as additional evidence. Since the CIT(A) had not examined this new evidence, the cases were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for departmental appeals is applicable to pending appeals as well as future appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for departmental appeals is applicable to pending appeals, not just future ones. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for appeals is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal is not maintainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals is applicable to pending appeals as well. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal, having a tax effect below the specified limit, was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular's relaxation in monetary limits for departmental appeals is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals is applicable to pending appeals as well. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for departmental appeals is applicable to pending appeals, not just future ones. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances monetary limits for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals as well. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the concession extended by the CBDT regarding enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals applies to pending appeals as well. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal admitted the post-order notification as additional evidence. Since the CIT(A) had not examined this new evidence, the cases were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal admitted the post-order notification as additional evidence. Since the CIT(A) had not examined this new evidence, the cases were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was obtained after the orders of the lower authorities and the Assessing Officer had not confronted the assessee with the contrary letter. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was obtained after the orders of the lower authorities and the Assessing Officer had not confronted the assessee with the contrary letter. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.