Loading ITAT cases…
138 tribunal orders from the Nagpur bench in 2018.
Showing 40 of 138 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in denying credit for TDS. Even though the income was exempt and the TDS certificate was in the assessee's name, the credit should be allowed as it appeared in the assessee's name in the AIR database.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act before passing a re-assessment order is a mandatory requirement and not a procedural irregularity that can be waived. Therefore, the re-assessment order passed without such notice is void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of murum, poal, sand, and boulder expenses needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer. The other grounds were either dismissed or upheld based on the evidence and legal provisions.
The Tribunal held that since the issue of taxability of interest accrued on NPA and the claim for provisions was highly debatable with two possible views, invoking Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars was not justified. Disclosure of primary facts in financial statements, even if the claim is disallowed, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in denying registration based on certain clauses in the Memorandum of Association, as the primary objects of the trust were charitable and its activities were open to the general public. The focus should be on the objects, not the functioning rules, for registration purposes.
The tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments was the primary issue. For murum and other expenses, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The CBDT circular regarding the monetary limit applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The appeals were liable to be dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a commission agent and had correctly considered commission income in its books. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on gross transportation charges was upheld, as the assessee's role was limited to facilitating movement of goods on commission.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals applies retrospectively. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as they did not meet the monetary limit criteria set by the CBDT. The CBDT circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals applies retrospectively. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeals and the cross-objections filed by the assessees were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeals and the cross-objections filed by the assessees were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeals and the cross-objections filed by the assessees were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeals and the cross-objections filed by the assessees were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeals and the cross-objections filed by the assessees were dismissed.