ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2016

The Tribunal held that the department ought not to have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and the relevant CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits.

The Tribunal held that the department ought not to have filed the appeal as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, issued under Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, following a Supreme Court ruling. It also found that the royalty payments were not of an enduring nature, distinguishing the case from the cited Supreme Court precedent.

The tribunal, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant, dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution. This decision was based on precedents where appeals were dismissed due to the assessee's failure to appear or pursue the matter.

The Tribunal held that Saket Projects Ltd. should be excluded as a comparable. This was based on the finding that its segmental data was unreliable and it was functionally dissimilar, organizing events with sponsorships rather than providing business support services.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not entertaining the additional evidence and that the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The Assessing Officer needs to consider the assessee's letter explaining the source of the cash.

The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 were outside the scope of Section 153C as they fell beyond the six-year period from the date of recording satisfaction. Therefore, the assessments were made without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The cross-objection by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the department ought not to have filed the appeal as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit as per Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's contentions regarding the differential amount being offered in the succeeding year and the EPF payment being made before the due date of filing the return were not considered. The proceedings were completed without adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made by the AO under Section 153A were not sustainable. The assessment should have been based on seized material, not on existing records.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were 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 the assessee's claim was bona fide, considering the efforts made to obtain confirmation and the time constraints faced by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished all necessary details and the amount was received by account payee cheque, thus setting aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice does not automatically mean the appeal is admitted. Non-appearance of the assessee makes the appeal defective and inadmissible. The appeal was dismissed as unadmitted.

The Tribunal held that all appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, rejecting the request for adjournment.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established rules and precedents, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including a compromise agreement, and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The AO is to verify the capital gains offered in the subsequent assessment year based on the compromise.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that there was no positive finding of concealment or adverse material by the AO. The addition was based on an estimate due to unsubstantiated expenses, and the penalty was deleted following jurisdictional High Court and ITAT precedents.

The Tribunal held that since the original addition on which the penalty was levied had been deleted by the ITAT and affirmed by the High Court, the penalty itself had no basis and was liable to be cancelled. Therefore, the department's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars, issued under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, are binding on income-tax authorities. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below a certain limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn.