ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2016

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to non-appearance and failure to rectify defects. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the circle rate at the time of the agreement to sell should be considered for Section 50C, not the sale deed date. It also ruled that Section 54B does not mandate that the investment must be made from the sale proceeds of the previous agricultural land, allowing the full deduction as initially accepted by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether AMP expenses constitute an international transaction needs to be determined afresh. The case was set aside to the AO for de-novo verification in light of relevant High Court judgments. Selling expenses directly linked to sales and not brand promotion were to be excluded from AMP expenses.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that no seized document was correlated with the surrender, and the surrender was based on mistaken facts and subsequently retracted.

The tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the first appellate authority. This was done to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. Following the CBDT circular, the Revenue should not have filed or should have withdrawn the appeal.

The Tribunal deleted the addition related to the surrendered income, finding no incriminating material to support it. Regarding household expenses, the Tribunal restricted the estimated amount, partly allowing the appeal. Consequently, the penalties imposed were also deleted.

The Tribunal deleted the addition related to the surrendered income, finding no incriminating material to support it. Regarding household expenses, the Tribunal restricted the estimated amount, partly allowing the appeal. Consequently, the penalties imposed were also deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000 should not be filed. Since the present appeal fell under this category, it was deemed not maintainable.