Loading ITAT cases…
167 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised upward the monetary limits for filing appeals, has retrospective effect and applies to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below the revised limit, the appeals were not entertained.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses by the AO was not justified as no specific instance of non-business expenditure was pointed out. Regarding interest expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, negating the diversion of borrowed funds.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue, as the tax effect in each case was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. The cross-objection filed by the assessee became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses by the AO was not justified as no specific instance of non-business expenditure was pointed out. Regarding interest expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, negating the diversion of borrowed funds.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of calculating capital gains, the entire sale consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs is to be taken into account, irrespective of whether the full amount was received or not. The plea regarding expenditure incurred for site development was also rejected due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were not entertained.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised upward the monetary limits for filing appeals, has retrospective effect and applies to all pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not entertained.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years require a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, which was not established. The Tribunal also noted that reopening cannot be done for mere verification of bank transactions.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element from transactions, whether for self or on behalf of others, should be taxed. Unexplained cash receipts not attributable to profit or investment require addition to income.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element from transactions, whether for self or on behalf of others, should be taxed. Unexplained cash receipts not attributable to profit or investment require addition to income.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets acquired by a charitable institution, even if the expenditure was treated as application of income. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona.
The Tribunal, following a precedent, directed that the addition on account of bogus purchases be restricted to the GP declared by the assessee plus 10% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders and had not dealt with the assessee's contention regarding indexed cost of acquisition and expenses. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Following principles of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present his case. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate hearing opportunities to both parties.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, noting that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issue. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(b) on milk sold to outside parties, similar to a previous co-ordinate bench decision. However, the quantification of the deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the condominium should be adjusted against its expenditures. Following a previous ruling, the interest income is not separately assessable in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee has a statutory right to appeal and should be granted an opportunity to be heard. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's right to appeal and the circumstances preventing their appearance. It granted the assessee a fresh opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(b) on milk sold to outside parties, similar to a previous co-ordinate bench decision. However, the quantification of the deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest earned from nationalized and scheduled banks, as well as commission and interest from MSEB, following its own previous order for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal allowed the VAT audit fees as the bill was received and the audit completed in the year under consideration. The disallowance on office/workshop expenses was upheld as the assessee had agreed to it. The disallowances on cash refunds and RTO charges were deleted as the revenue did not controvert the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative credit society, is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal distinguished the case from the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. by noting differences in the definition of 'members' under different state cooperative acts.