ITAT Nagpur Judgments — August 2023

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT circulars that set monetary limits for filing appeals, and the tax effect in these cases fell below the enhanced limit.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The departmental representative for the revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT circulars that set monetary limits for filing appeals, and the tax effect in these cases fell below the enhanced limit.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT circulars that set monetary limits for filing appeals, and the tax effect in these cases fell below the enhanced limit.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present its case before passing a fresh order.

The Tribunal held that once the AO estimates the profit, no disallowance under section 40A(3) can be made. This is because the estimation of profit inherently accounts for all business expenditures.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not adequately discuss the objects and activities of the trust. Therefore, the order was set aside for fresh adjudication, with a direction to consider the objects and activities and provide an opportunity to the assessee.

The assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and submitted Form No. 5. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the calculation of the tax effect, which was found to be below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to pass a speaking order and discuss each ground of appeal, even if the assessee fails to provide submissions. The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and set it aside.

The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessee's mistake, but considering the pandemic period and the need for adjudication on merits, decided to grant one final opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E was not imposable for the period prior to June 1, 2015, following High Court decisions. However, for periods on or after June 1, 2015, the fee was correctly levied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to apply for revival if exceptions applied later.

The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessee's mistake, but considering the pandemic period and the need for adjudication on merits, decided to grant one final opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E was not imposable for the period prior to June 1, 2015, following High Court decisions. However, for periods on or after June 1, 2015, the fee was correctly levied.

The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E was not imposable for the period prior to June 1, 2015, following High Court decisions. However, for periods on or after June 1, 2015, the fee was correctly levied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to apply for revival if exceptions applied later.

The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessee's mistake, but considering the pandemic period and the need for adjudication on merits, decided to grant one final opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to apply for revival if exceptions applied later.

The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessee's mistake, but considering the pandemic period and the need for adjudication on merits, decided to grant one final opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to apply for revival if exceptions applied later.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to apply for revival if exceptions applied later.

The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessee's mistake, but considering the pandemic period and the need for adjudication on merits, decided to grant one final opportunity.

The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessee's mistake, but considering the pandemic period and the need for adjudication on merits, decided to grant one final opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to apply for revival if exceptions applied later.

The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessee's mistake, but considering the pandemic period and the need for adjudication on merits, decided to grant one final opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E was not imposable for the period prior to June 1, 2015, following High Court decisions. However, for periods on or after June 1, 2015, the fee was correctly levied.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It directed fresh orders to be passed by the AO, excluding cases where the recipient had included the interest in their total income and no tax was deductible.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It directed fresh orders to be passed by the AO, excluding cases where the recipient had included the interest in their total income and no tax was deductible.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It directed fresh orders to be passed by the AO, excluding cases where the recipient had included the interest in their total income and no tax was deductible.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It directed fresh orders to be passed by the AO, excluding cases where the recipient had included the interest in their total income and no tax was deductible.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It directed fresh orders to be passed by the AO, excluding cases where the recipient had included the interest in their total income and no tax was deductible.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that the orders under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were not time-barred. It also clarified the conditions under which the bank would not be in default for non-deduction of tax.