ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — July 2017

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, and the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal considered the CBDT circular regarding tax limits for appeals and allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable as the assessee was a sub-contractor, not a contractor. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the appeal. Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the appeal. Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalties, were subsequently deleted by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalties had no legal basis. Therefore, the penalties were also deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It was held that merely because a claim is not accepted by the Revenue does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c), especially when material facts were furnished.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) who deleted the penalty. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that mere disallowance of a claim does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It was held that merely because a claim is not accepted by the Revenue does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c), especially when material facts were furnished.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It was held that merely because a claim is not accepted by the Revenue does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c), especially when material facts were furnished.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It was held that merely because a claim is not accepted by the Revenue does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c), especially when material facts were furnished.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E in the course of processing under Section 200A was bad in law as it was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments. Consequently, the impugned levy was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E in the course of processing under Section 200A was bad in law as it was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments. Consequently, the impugned levy was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lacs are to be dismissed. The Revenue's appeal was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.