ITAT Amritsar Judgments — October 2019

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed below the enhanced limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed below the enhanced limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed below the enhanced limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50,00,000, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed by the Department where the tax effect was below this enhanced limit were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed below the enhanced limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed below the enhanced limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed below the enhanced limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed below the enhanced limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed below the enhanced monetary limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Consequently, appeals filed below the enhanced monetary limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed below the enhanced limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed below the enhanced limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO had acted mechanically and like a 'post office' without applying independent mind or verifying the investigation report. The AO's reasons to believe were not based on rational connection or relevant material.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on interest-free loans, finding that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. It also upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, as no exempt income was earned by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the inclusion of the capital gain was an inadvertent mistake by the assessee's counsel and not a deliberate concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard, were violated as it was unclear if proper notices were served. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide and justifiable cause for non-compliance due to the incorrect address on the summons. The subsequent FIR filed by the assessee against the culprits involved in opening fake bank accounts supported this claim.

The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court decision on an identical issue, held that the CIT(E) was not justified in denying registration under Section 12AA solely because the assessee could have claimed exemption under Section 10(23C). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the case for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that merely because a claim is disallowed by the revenue authorities does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty is not leviable if the assessee acted bonafidely and did not conceal any information.

The Tribunal found that the sale deeds of agricultural land by the assessee's father did not clearly reflect receipt of consideration prior to the relevant financial year. Given the ex-parte assessment order and the complexities of the joint account and cash flow, the case was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal acknowledged the unintentional lapse of the applicant, stating that an oversight should not permanently close the doors of justice. It was deemed appropriate to allow the applicant a chance to present their case.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order in Jatinder Singh's case and remanded it for fresh adjudication, noting that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the evidence. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of the protective addition in Smt. Kulwant Kaur's case.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the evidence presented by the assessee and had dismissed grounds without adequate reasoning. Therefore, the case of Jatinder Singh was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The appeal by the Revenue against the deletion of the protective addition in the hands of Smt. Kulwant Kaur was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 37,27,522/-. The Tribunal found that the confirmation from the second party to the agreement, though an email, was the best source to ascertain the actual receipts and that there was no substantive material to sustain the addition.