ITAT Bangalore Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for filing appeals applies to pending appeals, not just future ones. Consequently, appeals filed below the enhanced limits were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not explicitly decided whether the payments were in the nature of sales commission, which was the assessee's primary argument. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned decision on this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not explicitly decided whether the payments were in the nature of sales commission, which was the assessee's primary argument. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned decision on this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not explicitly decided whether the payments were in the nature of sales commission, which was the assessee's primary argument. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned decision on this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not explicitly decided whether the payments were in the nature of sales commission, which was the assessee's primary argument. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned decision on this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not explicitly decided whether the payments were in the nature of sales commission, which was the assessee's primary argument. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned decision on this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not explicitly decided whether the payments were in the nature of sales commission, which was the assessee's primary argument. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned decision on this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not explicitly decided whether the payments were in the nature of sales commission, which was the assessee's primary argument. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned decision on this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not explicitly decided whether the payments were in the nature of sales commission, which was the assessee's primary argument. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned decision on this specific issue.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was based on the assessee's submission that the necessary details and evidence are now available and can be furnished, and in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was based on the assessee's submission that the necessary details and evidence are now available and can be furnished, and in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was based on the assessee's submission that the necessary details and evidence are now available and can be furnished, and in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was based on the assessee's submission that the necessary details and evidence are now available and can be furnished, and in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the concession in monetary limits for departmental appeals, as per the CBDT circular dated August 8, 2019, applies to pending appeals as well as future filings. All appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the tax effect of each appeal must be considered separately. The CBDT instructions are applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the tax effect of each appeal must be considered separately. The CBDT instructions are applicable to pending appeals.

The tribunal's decision is not detailed in this excerpt. This section only lists the cases being appealed.

The Tribunal held that the concession in monetary limits for departmental appeals, as per the CBDT circular dated August 8, 2019, applies to pending appeals as well as future filings. All appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal's decision is not detailed in this excerpt. This section only lists the cases being appealed.

The Tribunal held that the monetary limits specified in the CBDT circular dated August 8, 2019, are applicable to pending appeals, not just future ones. Consequently, appeals filed below the specified tax effect limit were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal's decision is not detailed in this excerpt. This section only lists the cases being appealed.

The Tribunal held that the monetary limits for filing appeals, as enhanced by the CBDT circular dated August 8, 2019, were applicable to pending appeals as well as future appeals. Consequently, appeals filed below the specified tax effect limit were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal's decision is not detailed in this excerpt. This section only lists the cases being appealed.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limits for departmental appeals, as per the CBDT circular dated August 8, 2019, are applicable to pending appeals as well as future filings. Consequently, appeals below the specified tax effect limit were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal's decision is not detailed in this excerpt. This section only lists the cases being appealed.

The Tribunal held that the concession in monetary limits for departmental appeals, as per the CBDT circular dated August 8, 2019, applies to pending appeals as well as future filings. All appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal's decision is not detailed in this excerpt. This section only lists the cases being appealed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

The tribunal's decision is not detailed in this excerpt. This section only lists the cases being appealed.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limits specified in the CBDT circular dated August 8, 2019, were applicable to pending appeals, not just those to be filed henceforth. Consequently, appeals below the specified tax limits were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal's decision is not detailed in this excerpt. This section only lists the cases being appealed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a bona fide estimate of employee salaries by valuing the perquisite of residential accommodation as if the employees were Central Government employees. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held as an assessee in default.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a bona fide estimate of employee salaries by valuing the perquisite of residential accommodation as if the employees were Central Government employees. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held as an assessee in default.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a bona fide estimate of employee salaries by valuing the perquisite of residential accommodation as if the employees were Central Government employees. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held as an assessee in default.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a bona fide estimate of employee salaries by valuing the perquisite of residential accommodation as if the employees were Central Government employees. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held as an assessee in default.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a bona fide estimate of employee salaries by valuing the perquisite of residential accommodation as if the employees were Central Government employees. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held as an assessee in default.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a bona fide estimate of employee salaries by valuing the perquisite of residential accommodation as if the employees were Central Government employees. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held as an assessee in default.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a bona fide estimate of employee salaries by valuing the perquisite of residential accommodation as if the employees were Central Government employees. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held as an assessee in default.

The tribunal's decision is not detailed in this excerpt. This section only lists the cases being appealed.

The Tribunal held that the concession in monetary limits for departmental appeals, as per the CBDT circular dated August 8, 2019, applies to pending appeals as well as future filings. All appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the monetary limits for filing appeals, as enhanced by the CBDT circular dated August 8, 2019, were applicable to pending appeals as well as future appeals. Consequently, appeals filed below the specified tax effect limit were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the concession in monetary limits for departmental appeals, as per the CBDT circular dated August 8, 2019, applies to pending appeals as well as future filings. All appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, which was below the threshold of Rs. 50 Lakhs as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground.

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

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this preliminary ground.

The Tribunal held that the possession granted to the developer was permissive and conditional upon obtaining approvals, and not a transfer of possession in part performance of an agreement for sale. Therefore, there was no 'transfer' in the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the possession granted to the developer was permissive and conditional upon obtaining approvals, and not a transfer in part performance of an agreement for sale. Therefore, there was no transfer in the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the application of the turnover filter for comparable companies, finding no merit in the Revenue's grounds related to it. The Tribunal also dismissed grounds related to persistent losses and abnormal profits, remanding other grounds concerning comparable companies for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the appeal proceedings are a continuation of the original assessment proceedings. Following the Rajasthan High Court's decision, it was held that the grant of registration under Section 12AA during the pendency of appeal proceedings should be considered retrospectively applicable for the assessment year in dispute.