Loading ITAT cases…
673 orders · Page 8 of 14
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 Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn/not pressed.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 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 Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.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 Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.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 Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.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 Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.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 assessee consistently maintained separate portfolios for business and investment, and this practice was accepted by the revenue in prior and subsequent years. Therefore, the income from share transactions should be treated as short-term capital gains.
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 Therefore, the appeal was deemed to be withdrawn/not pressed.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 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 Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.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 allowed the exemption under Section 10(23FB) to the assessee, finding that the investments in mutual funds were temporary and did not violate regulations. Consequently, the denial of exemptions under Sections 10(34) and 10(35) was also set aside. The Tribunal further directed that no interest under Section 234B be levied as the assessee's income was held to be exempt.
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 Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.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 held that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal did not fall within the exceptions to the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.
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 as it did not comply with the CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide any material to show the appeal was protected by exceptions to the monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide any material to show the appeal was protected by exceptions to the monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed because their filing was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed because their filing was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed because their filing was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in allowing the appeal after the assessee proved the genuineness of unsecured loans and creditors during remand proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to revive if an exception clause of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 applied.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were 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 to be 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 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 to be withdrawn/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/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/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening the assessment were factually incorrect. Since the reopening was based on erroneous grounds, the reassessment proceedings were deemed void ab initio and bad in law. Consequently, the entire assessment order was quashed.
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 appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable, citing the CBDT circular that enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue could file a miscellaneous application if the issue fell under the exceptions provided in the circular.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. This decision was based on established judicial precedents.
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 held that non-filing of an appeal in electronic form is a procedural defect that can be cured. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, with a direction to the assessees to file them electronically.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of an appeal in electronic form is a procedural defect that can be cured. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, with a direction to the assessees to file them electronically.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the revised monetary limits for appeals. Consequently, 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 decided 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 appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn/not pressed.
The tribunal noted that relief had already been granted by the first appellate authority. No objection was raised by the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the learned Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal application. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no interest disallowance was warranted as the assessee had sufficient reserves and surplus to cover its investments. It also directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the suo motu disallowance from the total disallowance computed under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee maintained separate audited accounts for business and share trading, and expenses like demat charges were debited to the capital account, the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified. Similar additions in earlier years were deleted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. It relied on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was below these limits.
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 appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the subsequent Supreme Court decision that clarified the law. It held that the denial of deduction on DEPB license sale proceeds was a mistake apparent from the record, rectifiable under Section 154.
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/not pressed.