Loading ITAT cases…
88 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked factual discussion on whether the assessee complied with Rule 31A. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked factual discussion on whether the assessee complied with Rule 31A. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the IBC and the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, all claims not part of the approved resolution plan are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the protective addition made by the AO, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee's appeal was dismissed due to the unexplained delay in filing.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue to Rs. 50.00 lakh. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the Tribunal was not inclined to entertain the appeal.
The tribunal decided to include the name of Shri Dr. Milind Bhusari as the Authorized Representative for all the assessees. This correction was made to rectify an inadvertent error in the previous order.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had not adequately discussed the objects and activities of the trust. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the protective addition made by the AO, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee's appeal was dismissed due to the unexplained delay in filing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish business expediency for the expenditure before the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the claim without proper factual discussion, violating procedural rules.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous.
The tribunal decided to include the name of Shri Dr. Milind Bhusari as the Authorized Representative for all the assessees. This correction was made to rectify an inadvertent error in the previous order.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was directly relatable to its business, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to finance charges and interest. Regarding power and fuel expenses, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s restricted disallowance to be reasonable.
The tribunal decided to include the name of Shri Dr. Milind Bhusari as the Authorized Representative for all the assessees. This correction was made to rectify an inadvertent error in the previous order.
The tribunal decided to include the name of Shri Dr. Milind Bhusari as the Authorized Representative for all the assessees. This correction was made to rectify an inadvertent error in the previous order.
The tribunal decided to include the name of Shri Dr. Milind Bhusari as the Authorized Representative for all the assessees. This correction was made to rectify an inadvertent error in the previous order.
The tribunal decided to include the name of Shri Dr. Milind Bhusari as the Authorized Representative for all the assessees. This correction was made to rectify an inadvertent error in the previous order.
The tribunal decided to include the name of Shri Dr. Milind Bhusari as the Authorized Representative for all the assessees. This correction was made to rectify an inadvertent error in the previous order.
The tribunal decided to include the name of Shri Dr. Milind Bhusari as the Authorized Representative for all the assessees. This correction was made to rectify an inadvertent error in the previous order.
The Tribunal held that since the basis of the assessment (the Section 263 order) was quashed by the Tribunal, the assessment order was invalid. Therefore, no exception could be taken to the CIT(A)'s order cancelling the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue could not be entertained due to the low tax effect, as it fell below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was directly relatable to its business, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to finance charges and interest. Regarding power and fuel expenses, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s restricted disallowance to be reasonable.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be reasonable, considering the assessee's past agricultural income and the lack of proper records. Therefore, the estimation of Rs.12,00,000/- was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked factual discussion on whether the assessee complied with Rule 31A. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked factual discussion on whether the assessee complied with Rule 31A. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the IBC and the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, all claims not part of the approved resolution plan are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the IBC and the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, all claims not part of the approved resolution plan are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the IBC and the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, all claims not part of the approved resolution plan are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the IBC and the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, pending proceedings are prohibited. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished, and therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the IBC and the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, all claims not part of the approved resolution plan are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts but found the 6% profit estimation arbitrary. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate net profit at 3% of gross receipts, considering past profit margins.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular regarding monetary limits. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular regarding monetary limits. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular regarding monetary limits. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in all the appeals was below the monetary limit fixed by the CBDT circular and did not fall under any exceptions, the grounds raised by the Revenue failed. Consequently, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not fall under the exceptions provided by the CBDT Circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular regarding monetary limits. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in all the appeals was below the monetary limit fixed by the CBDT circular and did not fall under any exceptions, the grounds raised by the Revenue failed. Consequently, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in all the appeals was below the monetary limit fixed by the CBDT circular and did not fall under any exceptions, the grounds raised by the Revenue failed. Consequently, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as they did not fall under the exceptions provided by the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that Section 253 of the Act does not permit an assessee to file a direct appeal to the Tribunal against a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271FA. Therefore, the appeals were filed without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that Section 253 of the Act does not permit an assessee to file a direct appeal to the Tribunal against a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271FA. Therefore, the appeals were filed without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that Section 253 of the Act does not permit an assessee to file a direct appeal to the Tribunal against a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271FA. Therefore, the appeals were filed without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that Section 253 of the Act does not permit an assessee to file a direct appeal to the Tribunal against a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271FA. Therefore, the appeals were filed without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that Section 253 of the Act does not permit an assessee to file a direct appeal to the Tribunal against a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271FA. Therefore, the appeals were filed without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that Section 253 of the Act does not permit an assessee to file a direct appeal to the Tribunal against a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271FA. Therefore, the appeals were filed without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that Section 253 of the Act does not permit an assessee to file a direct appeal to the Tribunal against a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271FA. Therefore, the appeals were filed without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal was Rs. 50.00 lakh. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was not entertained.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on incorrect grounds as the assessee had provided evidence for purchases from one party and denied transactions with four others. The Assessing Officer had verified these details and found them correct in the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the appeals of the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit set by CBDT circulars. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that Section 253 of the Act does not permit an assessee to file a direct appeal to the Tribunal against a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271FA. Therefore, the appeals were filed without jurisdiction.