ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2015

The Tribunal, considering the CBDT circular and the likely low tax effect, dismissed the appeal without going into the merits. The Tribunal clarified that this dismissal would not create a precedent for future appeals with a higher tax effect.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, noting that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit. The dismissal was based on the CBDT instruction and Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal decided that the appeal should be dismissed without going into the merits of the case, as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit. The Tribunal also clarified that this dismissal would not create a precedent for future appeals with a higher tax effect.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit. The Tribunal clarified that this dismissal would not set a precedent for future years if the tax effect exceeded the limit.

The Tribunal held that education cess is an additional surcharge and is covered by the scope of DTAA provisions. Therefore, it cannot be levied in addition to the tax rates prescribed in the DTAA.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect involved was below Rs. 10 lakhs, in line with the CBDT's instruction. 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, noting that the tax effect involved was below the Rs. 10 lakh limit specified by the CBDT. The Tribunal clarified that this dismissal would not be a precedent for future appeals with a higher tax effect.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs, as per CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015. The dismissal was without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs, as per CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case, as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit. The Tribunal clarified that this dismissal would not create a precedent for future appeals with a higher tax effect.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was done in accordance with the CBDT circular that mandates not filing appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs.

The Tribunal decided that the appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit. The dismissal would not create a precedent for future years if the tax effect exceeds the limit.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case, as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit. The Tribunal clarified that this dismissal would not set a precedent for future appeals with a higher tax effect.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Tribunal clarified that this would not set a precedent for future years if the tax effect exceeds the limit.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case, citing the CBDT instruction regarding the monetary limit for appeals. The dismissal was based on the low tax effect involved.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs, as per CBDT instruction. The dismissal was without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below Rs. 10 lakhs, in line with the CBDT's instruction. The dismissal was not to be considered a precedent for future appeals with a higher tax effect.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT instruction provided for withdrawal or non-pressing of pending appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into merits, as the tax effect was below the specified limit.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. It clarified that this dismissal due to low tax effect would not be a precedent for future appeals with higher tax effects.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. It noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs prescribed by the CBDT.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was below Rs. 10 lakhs as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Tribunal clarified that this dismissal would not be a precedent for future appeals with a higher tax effect.

The Tribunal decided that the appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit. The dismissal would not create a precedent for future years if the tax effect exceeds the limit.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections as infructuous. This was based on the CBDT circular stating that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed or should be withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the statements of three co-tenants confirming payments for electricity charges to the assessee were valid and should have been considered. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 6,59,225/- was deleted. However, for the remaining amount of Rs. 3,96,272/-, where no evidence was produced, the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Tribunal clarified that this dismissal would not set a precedent for future years if the tax effect exceeds the limit.