Loading ITAT cases…
17 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.
The Tribunal held that the termination of the MoU and the sale of land were interdependent transactions. The expenditure incurred for surrendering LEPL's rights was considered wholly and exclusively for the transfer of land, as LEPL's rights could have prevented the sale.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeals and the cross objections were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for AY 2013-14, finding that the AO failed to properly examine the exemption claims. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to reconsider depreciation on assets treated as application of income, following a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeals and the cross objections were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for AY 2013-14, finding that the AO failed to properly examine the exemption claims. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to reconsider depreciation on assets treated as application of income, following a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for AY 2013-14, finding that the AO failed to properly examine the exemption claims. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to reconsider depreciation on assets treated as application of income, following a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50.00 lakhs are not maintainable. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, failing to strike off the irrelevant portion. Consequently, the penalty order was cancelled.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence (confirmation letters and creditor details) filed by the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to re-adjudicate the issue.
The Tribunal held that the tax audit objection did not qualify as an exception to the CBDT circular regarding tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was to be decided based on the monetary limits specified in the circular.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent order passed by the Assessing Officer, following a Section 263 order by the CIT, could not be considered an audit objection. Therefore, the CBDT circular regarding tax effect was applicable.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice and natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found the CIT's order to be unclear and therefore set it aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to redo the assessment after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence for pending assessment for the relevant AY when applying for registration and did not furnish details for 10(23C) approval. Therefore, the denial of exemption was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause due to the wrong advice received. It also held that the assessee's objects were predominantly charitable and not mixed with religious intent, and the CIT was not justified in rejecting the registration based on perceived lack of genuineness at the initial stage.