Loading ITAT cases…
673 orders · Page 10 of 14
The Tribunal decided that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue did not provide any exceptions to justify the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the revised monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, citing non-compliance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal held that unsold properties held as stock-in-trade cannot be subjected to deemed rent. It also ruled that BMC charges are admissible expenses and modified the disallowance under Section 14A to a lump sum amount.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit and the Revenue did not provide any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, stating that its filing was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals.
The Tribunal decided not to proceed with the appeals on merits due to the non-compliance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanations and evidence were not properly presented before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit and no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit and no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The ITAT held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed because its filing was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue is at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if exceptions apply.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed to be withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's mistake was inadvertent and bonafide, and they voluntarily offered the amounts for addition. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Price Water Coopers Pvt Ltd, the Tribunal found no intent to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the revised monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed due to non-compliance with CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed, citing non-compliance with CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal, applying the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals, deemed the appeal withdrawn or not pressed. The Revenue is at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if exceptions apply.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn/not pressed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide any material to show the appeal was covered by exceptions to the monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 11(2) as the accumulation was for a genuine purpose and the property was acquired in the subsequent year. However, the issue regarding the disallowance of expenses was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the amount represented outstanding lease rentals and not an unexplained credit. The Assessing Officer's own remand report acknowledged that no loan was taken or cash credited, and the amount was related to lease rentals payable.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the quantum additions contested by the revenue was below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The tribunal noted that the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal and no objection was raised by the revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had properly appreciated the assessee's submissions regarding the nature of the income. The accounting treatment alone was not conclusive. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was imposed mechanically without proper satisfaction recorded by the AO. The assessee had disclosed all facts, and it was unclear in which year the liability was booked, thus the penalty could not be sustained.