ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2015

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular dated 10.12.2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals, is binding on the Department. Since the tax effect was below Rs. 10 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 80IC deduction to the AO for de novo consideration due to lack of proper investigation. It also remitted the issue of deduction on duty drawback and job work charges to the AO. The disallowance of subscription and membership fees was upheld, while the disallowance of travelling expenses was deleted.

The Tribunal held that no separate adjustment for interest on receivables is warranted, as the cost of funds blocked in the credit period is considered embedded in the sale price. The Tribunal also directed the TPO to reconsider the inclusion of certain comparable companies.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of the Rs. 2,14,39,000/- addition back to the AO for de novo decision, requiring an opportunity for cross-examination. The grounds regarding Dharmada collections and the Sugar Development Fund loan interest were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the letting of the building with amenities like wooden cabins, central air-conditioning, and power backup was inseparable, constituting composite rent. Therefore, the income is taxable under 'Income from other sources', and the deduction under Section 24(a) is not allowable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the CIT(Appeals) had correctly appreciated the facts regarding the reconciliation of jewellery. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(Appeals)'s detailed order.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which mandates not filing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain limit, is binding on income-tax authorities. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, given the low tax effect. The cross-objections became infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the CIT(Appeals) had correctly appreciated the facts regarding the reconciliation of jewellery. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(Appeals)'s detailed order.

The Tribunal held that tax-exempt income under Section 10AA cannot be set off against losses from tax-liable income, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order allowing the carry forward of losses and depreciation was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries and relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report without corroborating evidence. The assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions related to earnest money, cash deposits, and the applicability of Section 50C. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for these transactions and that Section 50C was not applicable to stock-in-trade.

The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation available on April 1, 2002, should be dealt with under the amended Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act. This amendment, effective from Assessment Year 2002-03, removed the 8-year restriction on carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which mandates not filing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10,00,000/-, is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the advance received by the assessee in a fiduciary capacity, which was to be used as per client instructions, did not form part of the assessee's taxable income. However, the disallowance made under Section 14A was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court had already set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee before the Tribunal had become infructuous.

The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for other assessment years where a similar issue regarding contractual obligations was decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 1,44,85,000, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient documentation for the share applicants. The disallowance of interest was also deleted as it was found to be for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Department. As the tax effect in the present appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- and Rs. 11,00,000/- made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was justified as it related to the assessee's regular business. However, the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 10A on these amounts.

The Tribunal held that addition under Section 68 on account of share application money cannot be made when the assessee has not started its business activity. Following the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Co., the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the revised CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit of ₹10 lakhs for filing appeals to the ITAT, was applicable. The appeals were therefore dismissed based on this circular.

The tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue based on a CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT. The circular made these limits applicable retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the revised CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit of ₹10 lakhs for filing appeals to the ITAT, was applicable. The appeals were therefore dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals was binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on the low tax effect.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, relying on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10 lac. The dismissal was based on the low tax effect and not on merits.

The Tribunal held that the revised CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit of ₹10 lakhs for filing appeals to the ITAT, was applicable. The appeals were therefore dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that the revised CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit of ₹10 lakhs for filing appeals to the ITAT, was applicable. The appeals were therefore dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that the revised CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit of ₹10 lakhs for filing appeals to the ITAT, was applicable. The appeals were therefore dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10 lac is applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal, having a tax effect below this limit, was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, relying on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10 lac. The dismissal was based on the low tax effect and not on merits.

The Tribunal held that the revised CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit of ₹10 lakhs for filing appeals to the ITAT, was applicable. The appeals were therefore dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals based on the CBDT Circular which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit should not be filed. The dismissal was on the grounds of low tax effect and not on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals based on the CBDT Circular which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit should not be filed. The dismissal was on the grounds of low tax effect and not on merits.

The Tribunal held that the revised CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit of ₹10 lakhs for filing appeals to the ITAT, was applicable. The appeals were therefore dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order cancelling the demand notice was justified as the penalty was levied on Shri S.C. Mangal and not directly on the assessee company. Recovery from the assessee company could only be made after passing an order under Section 170(3) of the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the revised CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit of ₹10 lakhs for filing appeals to the ITAT, was applicable. The appeals were therefore dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals based on the CBDT Circular which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit should not be filed. The dismissal was on the grounds of low tax effect and not on merits.