ITAT Amritsar Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable. This was based on CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018, which stipulates a monetary limit for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that the taxability of the sum depended on the basic facts of the transfer of the gas agency, which were yet unascertained. The onus was on the assessee to prove the transaction, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT instructions for filing appeals before the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

The ITAT held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lacs prescribed by CBDT instructions for appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT instructions for appeals to the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. This was in accordance with CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable considering the complex and debatable nature of the issue, and the lack of independent reasoning by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal observed that the orders of the authorities below had already been set aside.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018. This instruction is binding on the department and applies retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1)(a) is applicable even if the assessee's accounts are rejected, as the provision deals with the remission or cessation of a trading liability previously allowed as a deduction. The fact that the liability was discharged in cash in a subsequent year was considered immaterial.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not meet the monetary limit specified by the CBDT for appeals to the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit as per Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and the relevant CBDT instructions.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018. The Ld. DR also agreed with this position.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT instructions. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not meet the monetary limit specified by the CBDT for appeals to the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018. Both parties agreed to this position.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT instructions for appeals before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect of the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20 lacs. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as per Section 268A of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it fell below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed in limine on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the 'tax effect' was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT instructions. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018. Consequently, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee also became infructuous.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest disallowance to the AO for a final opportunity to the assessee to present her case. Regarding interest under sections 234A and 234B, the Tribunal held that such levies are compensatory and mandatory, and their waiver or reduction falls under the administrative domain of the CCIT under Section 119(2)(a) of the Act, not appealable to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the assessee's accounts were not reliable due to the absence of stock records and the discrepancy found during the survey. The estimated profit additions were considered reasonable.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the assessee's accounts were not reliable due to the absence of stock records and the discrepancy found during the survey. The estimated profit additions were considered reasonable.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for Revenue appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified by Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and relevant CBDT instructions.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018. This instruction is binding on the department and applies retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018. The Ld. DR also agreed with this position.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not properly served on the assessee, both due to the questionable timeline of the affixture order and the incorrect address used. Consequently, the assessment order, being based on invalid notice, was deemed illegal and void.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was subsequently granted registration under Section 12A and there was no change in its objects and activities, it should be deemed registered for the relevant year. Consequently, the benefit of Section 11 exemption could not be denied, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal allowed a reduced disallowance for foreign travel expenses at 2.5% of the balance expenditure. The issue of carry forward of capital loss was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits. The disallowance of car expenses was also set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. This was in accordance with CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable. This was based on CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT instructions for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.