Loading ITAT cases…
807 orders · Page 15 of 17
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT. As no exceptions applied, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. As no exceptions applied, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, stating that its filing was not in consonance with the CBDT circular. The Revenue can approach for recall if exceptions apply.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. As no exceptions were cited, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing necessary documents like PAN, bank statements, and audited accounts of the share applicant companies. The Assessing Officer had not conducted further inquiry to disprove these documents.
The Tribunal held that professional fees paid to KPMG LLP, UK, were not subject to TDS as the entity had no permanent establishment in India and the services were independent personal services. Ad-hoc disallowances for staff welfare, miscellaneous, and seminar expenses were deleted as no specific defects were pointed out. Interest paid on delayed service tax payment was deemed compensatory and allowable.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT. The Revenue did not provide any justification for the appeal falling under the exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that professional fees paid to KPMG LLP, UK, were not subject to TDS as the entity had no permanent establishment in India and the services were independent personal services. Ad-hoc disallowances for staff welfare, miscellaneous, and seminar expenses were deleted as no specific defects were pointed out. Interest paid on delayed service tax payment was deemed compensatory and allowable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly decided the issues based on the ITAT's prior ruling and jurisdictional High Court decisions. Therefore, the issues were squarely covered by these precedents.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for Section 10A deduction for multiple units, following its own previous orders and ITAT Bangalore decisions. The issue of depreciation on goodwill was remanded for decision after a related appeal is decided.
The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred for the day-to-day running and maintenance of the society building are revenue in nature. It was further noted that these expenses do not add to the cost or value of the unsold flats.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the subscription revenue received by the assessee from Indian customers was in the nature of royalty. It also upheld the DRP's decision to delete interest under Section 234B, following a High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Since the Revenue did not provide any exceptions, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the purchases were indeed bogus and the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. However, it directed that additions should be made at 5% of the bogus purchases, modifying the lower appellate authority's decision.
The Tribunal held that simply because the supplier was not produced, the entire purchases cannot be added. Following Gujarat High Court decisions, the addition was restricted to an estimated profit element.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order and had not properly adjudicated the issues. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the dividend income earned by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the dividend income.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed. This decision was based on the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals, as the current appeals did not meet the threshold and lacked exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict expenses under various heads to 25%, aligning with disallowances made in subsequent assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were below the prescribed monetary limit and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not disputed the genuineness of the interest payments and advances. The Board of Directors' resolution also confirmed the business purpose of the loans. Therefore, the interest could not be disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred for registration with REACH and for professional services were revenue in nature, as they were necessary for the assessee to market its products in European countries and did not create an enduring asset. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as the assessee did not earn exempt income.
The Tribunal held that where the assessee's own funds (share capital and reserves) were significantly more than the investment in property advances, the presumption is that the investment was made out of own interest-free funds. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were below the prescribed monetary limit and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, applying the revised monetary limit for appeals stipulated in the CBDT circular. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach for recall if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, the appeal was not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed. This decision was based on the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals, as the current appeals did not meet the threshold and lacked exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made complete disclosures in its accounts and return, and the disallowances arose from bona fide and inadvertent errors, not concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made complete disclosures in its accounts and return, and the disallowances arose from bona fide and inadvertent errors, not concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the imposition of penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circular and were therefore deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals and were therefore dismissed as withdrawn. Cross-objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circular and were therefore deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the assessee did not intend to conceal income, having voluntarily disclosed it in the subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal also noted issues with the penalty notice not specifying the limb under which the penalty was levied.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.