ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2016

The Tribunal held that the interest on the housing loan taken for acquiring the property, whose income was assessable under 'income from house property', is allowable as a deduction under Section 24(b). The repayment of the loan was also eligible for deduction under Section 80C.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions because the reconciliation statement, which tallied the differences as of the closing balance, was accepted during remand proceedings. The CIT(A) should not have proceeded on conjectures and should have ensured proper verification before confirming the additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's statutory right to appeal was not foreclosed by pursuing writ jurisdiction. The delay caused by the writ proceedings should not prejudice the assessee, and the CIT(A) should have admitted the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's statutory right to appeal was not foreclosed by pursuing writ jurisdiction. The delay caused by the writ proceedings should not prejudice the assessee, and the CIT(A) should have admitted the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's statutory right to appeal was not foreclosed by pursuing writ jurisdiction. The delay caused by the writ proceedings should not prejudice the assessee, and the CIT(A) should have admitted the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per the retrospective CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- are not maintainable. The Revenue should not have filed or should have withdrawn the appeal.

The Tribunal set aside the issues to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. This was done in the interest of natural justice, to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and to consider all submissions and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the interest on the housing loan taken for acquiring the property, whose income was assessable under 'income from house property', is allowable as a deduction under Section 24(b). The repayment of the loan was also eligible for deduction under Section 80C.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The CBDT circular with retrospective effect mandated not pressing or withdrawing such appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's statutory right to appeal was not foreclosed by pursuing writ jurisdiction. The delay caused by the writ proceedings should not prejudice the assessee, and the CIT(A) should have admitted the appeals.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected the assessee's application for additional evidence without cogent reasons. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after admitting the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on statements recorded behind the assessee's back without allowing cross-examination, violating natural justice. Therefore, the matter needed to be remanded for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. F. No. 279/Misc.142/207 ITJ(Pt) dated 10th December, 2015, appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Revenue's appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was bad in law as the issue was already examined and decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years, and there was no failure to disclose material facts. Therefore, the addition on account of notional income was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was bad in law as the issue was already examined and decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years, and there was no failure to disclose material facts. Therefore, the addition on account of notional income was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the grounds of appeal were not signed by the authorized officer as required by Section 253(2) of the IT Act. The Tribunal noted the defect and dismissed the appeal as defective.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was bad in law as the issue was already examined and decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years, and there was no failure to disclose material facts. Therefore, the addition on account of notional income was deleted.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT instruction that no departmental appeal should be filed if the tax effect is less than Rs. 10 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable and should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Department.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the ground that the tax effect did not exceed the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular, making the appeal not maintainable.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established rules and precedents, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal without adjudicating the merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rejected the assessee's application for additional evidence on technical grounds. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to file a proper application under Rule 46A.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, completed assessments cannot be interfered with under Section 153A. Additions or disallowances cannot be made based on material already disclosed or known during the original assessment.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding advances and petty loans, disallowing only a portion of the amount. It also allowed the depreciation claim on the car, finding the assessee's explanation plausible. The penalty appeal was also partly allowed, to be recalculated based on the confirmed addition.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was bad in law as the issue was already examined and decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years, and there was no failure to disclose material facts. Therefore, the addition on account of notional income was deleted.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding advances and petty loans, disallowing only a portion of the amount. It also allowed the depreciation claim on the car, finding the assessee's explanation plausible. The penalty appeal was also partly allowed, to be recalculated based on the confirmed addition.