Loading ITAT cases…
673 orders · Page 6 of 14
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable. This was based on the CBDT's circular revising the monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT, which the current appeal's tax effect fell below.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had suo motu disallowed an amount exceeding 0.5% of the average investment value, there was no scope for further disallowance under Section 14A. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for bad and doubtful debts is not allowable in AY 2012-13 as RBI approval for write-off was obtained only in AY 2015-16. The issue of brought forward losses from AY 2007-08 was remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that depreciation was allowed in the first year by the AO, and subsequent disallowance was not justified. The assessee had capitalized the asset and paid installments as per AS-19.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal is now considering the Revenue's appeal against this deletion.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to investments yielding exempt income, excluding those not generating taxable income. A separate disallowance of interest expenditure was deleted as it was already accounted for.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the payment was a one-time premium for ensuring uninterrupted gold supply, effectively adding to the cost of gold, and not commission. Therefore, TDS was not required under Section 194H, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was invalid. Furthermore, the issue of capital vs. revenue expenditure is debatable and cannot be rectified under Section 154.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to present his case and submit evidence, with the assessee also directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal, following a decision in a sister concern's case, directed the AO to restrict the addition to 3% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the export nature of the business and the transactional margin declared.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that approval of the R&D facility by DSIR is sufficient for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB), not the approval of specific expenses. It also held that the guarantee commission charged at 1% by the assessee was at Arm's Length Price (ALP), following High Court and Supreme Court precedents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the matter without providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the profits arising from the sale of shares were indeed capital gains and not business income, as the assessee maintained a distinction between trading and investment and used its own funds for investments.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeals. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the profits arising from the sale of shares were indeed capital gains and not business income, as the assessee maintained a distinction between trading and investment and used its own funds for investments.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee were purely reimbursements of actual expenses incurred without any mark-up. Therefore, they were not chargeable to tax as royalty income.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee were purely reimbursements of actual expenses incurred without any mark-up. Therefore, they were not chargeable to tax as royalty income.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in all appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were to be dismissed. Liberty was granted to the revenue to seek recall if exceptions were found later.
The Tribunal held that payments received by the assessee were purely reimbursements of actual expenses incurred without any mark-up. Therefore, they were not chargeable to tax as royalty income.
The Tribunal held that the entire land was acquired as part of an indivisible composite industrial undertaking and formed part of business assets. Therefore, the interest attributable to the balance land was allowable as business expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii). The land development expenditure issue was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 because the issues dealt with by the Commissioner were already part of the appeal before the first appellate authority, leading to a merger of the AO's order with the appellate order. Therefore, the Commissioner had no power to revise these matters.
The Tribunal held that income from a container freight station is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4), following a Supreme Court decision. Issues related to Section 14A and other expense disallowances were either allowed, partly allowed, or dismissed based on arguments and prior decisions.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee were purely reimbursements of actual expenses incurred without any mark-up. Therefore, these amounts were not taxable as income in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of gold bars was not justified as they were purchased in an earlier assessment year. The diamond jewellery was also considered explained, considering the assessee's status and the fact that it belonged to his wife, who was an independent assessee.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in all appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were to be dismissed. Liberty was granted to the revenue to seek recall if exceptions were found later.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in all appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were to be dismissed. Liberty was granted to the revenue to seek recall if exceptions were found later.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) should be allowed. It relied on a co-ordinate bench's decision which stated that the withdrawal of recognition of the payee institution subsequent to the donation does not affect the payer's claim.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals before the ITAT. The Revenue could not point out any exception to this circular.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.