ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2015

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in invoking Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act. The assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the actual cost incurred.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as the tax effect involved was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. The dismissal was based on the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular was squarely applicable to the pending appeals. Therefore, there was no necessity to adjourn the appeals or call for reports, and the appeals were dismissed in light of the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT at Rs. 10 lakhs. The dismissal was without prejudice to the Revenue's right to appeal on merits if the tax effect in subsequent years exceeds the limit.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were indeed barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, as the limitation period should be calculated from the date of the first notice issued by the AO. Consequently, the penalties were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were indeed barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, as the limitation period should be calculated from the date of the first notice issued by the AO. Consequently, the penalties were quashed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The dismissal was without prejudice to the Revenue's right to pursue the issue in subsequent years if the tax effect exceeded the limit.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals, was applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the appeals filed with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs were to be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs, as per the CBDT circular. The dismissal was not to be considered a precedent for future years with higher tax effects.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular was squarely applicable to the pending appeals. Therefore, there was no necessity to adjourn the appeals or call for reports, and the appeals were dismissed in light of the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 which revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT at Rs. 10 lakhs. The dismissal was based on the low tax effect, with liberty granted to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect was actually above the limit.

The Tribunal cancelled the penalty, stating that since the basis for the penalty (the Tribunal's quantum appeal order) was set aside by the High Court, the penalty no longer survived.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to non-prosecution. The assessee was given the liberty to file an application for recalling the order if they could provide satisfactory reasons for non-compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs stipulated by the CBDT. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal also noted that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by a previous decision in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds, following its own previous order on identical issues for the prior assessment year. The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's grounds regarding depreciation on goodwill and a vehicle, also following its previous order.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained, following a co-ordinate bench's decision. The Tribunal found that the information regarding the donor engaging in hawala transactions was general in nature and not specific enough to disprove the genuineness of the credit in the assessee's account. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also cancelled.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on incorrect facts and lacked cogent evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals, was applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the appeals filed with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs were to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below Rs. 10,00,000.

The Tribunal held that while the addition was justified due to the assessee's inability to conclusively prove the genuineness of the gifts, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. Not being able to prove a claim to the satisfaction of the Revenue is grounds for addition, but not necessarily for penalty.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal clarified that this dismissal would not be a precedent for future years if the tax effect exceeds the limit.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue solely on the grounds of low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The dismissal was not to be considered a precedent for future years with higher tax effects.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The dismissal was not to be considered a precedent for subsequent years with a higher tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the income arising from the provision of oilfield equipment for mineral oil exploration is taxable under Section 44BB, not as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) and Section 115A. Interest under Section 234B was also held to be consequential.

The Tribunal held that ad hoc disallowances without specific material are not permissible. It also found that advertisement expenditure for product launches and granty signs is revenue expenditure, covered by High Court decisions. Furthermore, WPC-royalty expenses are revenue expenditure as they are recurring charges for spectrum usage without creating enduring benefits.