Loading ITAT cases…
673 orders · Page 9 of 14
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 Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.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 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 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 Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.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 circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.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 Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.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. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn/not pressed.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 Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn/not pressed.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 decided that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits. Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal, following the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals, deemed the appeal withdrawn or not pressed. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if exceptions applied.
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 Therefore, the appeal was deemed to be withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Instruction provides for certain amounts of jewellery to be considered as held by family members due to custom. Therefore, credit to this extent should be granted and not dismissed as done by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases cannot be made when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. The addition should be limited to bringing the gross profit rate on bogus purchases to the same rate as genuine purchases.
The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be contradictory, as she acknowledged that brought forward business loss can be set off against speculation income but still upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that justice should not be sacrificed for hypertechnicality, especially in the first year of a new filing procedure. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 43CA, which came into effect from April 1, 2014 (AY 2014-15), is not applicable to agreements entered into during FY 2012-13, even if the sale was registered in FY 2013-14. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
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 appeals. Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, additions made without incriminating material found during search were not permissible, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The appeal for AY 2009-10 was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. However, considering the purchases were from the grey market, a 12.5% disallowance was deemed appropriate, reduced by the gross profit already declared.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. The addition should be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same level as genuine purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide any material to show the appeal was protected by exceptions to the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals were 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 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.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limits specified by the CBDT. Consequently, 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. Consequently, 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. 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/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 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 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 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, citing non-compliance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue can approach for recall if exceptions apply.
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 appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were 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 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 failed to prove the genuineness of cash credits and the purchases made. The Tribunal found that the suppliers of goods were issuing bogus invoices without supplying any material, and the assessee could not prove the consumption of the material.
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 to be withdrawn or not pressed.
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 held that the lower authorities failed to verify the assessee's claim that the borrowed funds were used to grant loans to other entities, from which interest income was earned. Following the precedent in CIT vs Taj International Jewelers, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the interest expenditure as a deduction.
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.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination of the ALV of all units. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the municipal rateable value as a guide, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Tip Top Typography.
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.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue could not show any exceptions to the circulars. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, citing the CBDT circulars that set enhanced monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if exceptions applied.
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.