ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular also applied retrospectively to pending appeals. Since the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, read with Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs are to be dismissed. The enhanced limits apply to pending appeals as well.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by the enhanced monetary limit specified by the CBDT and was therefore liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. The legal issue raised by the Revenue was left open.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions that the CIT(A) had not properly dealt with the factual submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal restored certain issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to verify the assessee's claim that her income represents 35% of the total voucher receipts for specific days.

The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether the assessee purchased shares through IPO and if the SEBI order was properly confronted. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limit under CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the new limit, they were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that in similar cases within the same group, penalties under Section 271AAB were deleted when no incriminating material was found. However, in one specific instance, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to examine the original statement recorded during the search.

The Tribunal noted that in similar cases within the same group, penalties under Section 271AAB were deleted when no incriminating material was found. However, in one specific instance, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to examine the original statement recorded during the search.

The Tribunal noted that in similar cases within the same group, penalties under Section 271AAB were deleted when no incriminating material was found. However, in one specific instance, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to examine the original statement recorded during the search.

The Tribunal decided to set aside the issue of interest disallowance to the AO for adjudication in light of a previous ITAT order. Regarding other expenses, the Tribunal found the 1/5th disallowance excessive and restricted it to 1/10th, while giving credit for the disallowance already made by the assessee.

The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's instruction to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that in similar cases within the same group, penalties under Section 271AAB were deleted when no incriminating material was found. However, in one specific instance, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to examine the original statement recorded during the search.

The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether the assessee purchased shares through IPO and if the SEBI order was properly confronted. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

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 limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB is not mandatory and depends on whether the surrendered income meets the definition of 'undisclosed income' based on incriminating material found during search. In cases where such material is absent, the penalty is not warranted.

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 limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB is not mandatory and depends on whether the surrendered income qualifies as 'undisclosed income' based on incriminating material found during the search. In this case, the penalty was restricted to 10% of the income related to specific items found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB is not mandatory and depends on whether the surrendered income qualifies as 'undisclosed income' based on incriminating material found during the search. In this case, the penalty was restricted to 10% of the income related to specific items found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not recorded the necessary satisfaction to invoke Rule 8D and that the disallowance should be restricted to the amount suo motu offered by the assessee. The lower authorities' further disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB is not mandatory and depends on whether the surrendered income qualifies as 'undisclosed income' based on incriminating material found during the search. In this case, the penalty was restricted to 10% of the income related to specific items found during the search.

The Tribunal held that in light of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs, and relief has been granted by the CIT(A), cannot be challenged before the Tribunal. The assessee's Cross Objection was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was relevant and there was a reasonable cause for not filing it earlier. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the new evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest was not warranted as the assessee had sufficient own interest-free funds, and therefore, the advances were presumed to be made out of these funds. The ground related to consultation fees was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not effectively avail the appellate remedy due to a misunderstanding of the relief sought and the nature of the proceedings. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the new CBDT circular, enhancing the monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal admitted the new legal ground as it was based on facts on record and affected the foundation of the penalty levy. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the legal issue and the merits of the case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the order was not sent to the assessee's correct address and that the firm had closed down. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the facts regarding the hospital's charitable nature and its relation to the assessee trust were not sufficiently established. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand during the period, and the discrepancy in dates was a plausible typographical error. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.

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

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

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

The Tribunal found that the facts regarding the hospital's charitable nature and its relation to the assessee trust were not sufficiently established. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.