ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2018

The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue due to the low tax effect. Following the CBDT circular, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of scrap sales needed to be remanded back to the AO for proper examination of the nature of the sales and accounting. The addition for low declaration of income was deleted as the amount was offered to tax in the subsequent year.

The Tribunal held that the seized document, though not a 'dumb document', could not be treated as entirely representing undisclosed income. While some entries were explained and accounted for, others remained unexplained.

The Tribunal held that since the sundry creditors were from earlier years and the business was closed, it could not be presumed that there was a cessation of liability in the current year. Therefore, the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income.

The Tribunal found that the land transfer was to a college run by the society, not an external entity. It also noted that advances to members were less than 5% of gross receipts, thus not violating Section 13. The Tribunal felt the CIT's refusal was based on the AO's report without specific findings on non-genuineness of activities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim, while ultimately found to be unsustainable, was not a false claim. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, it was determined that a claim, even if wrong, does not automatically attract penalty if all details were available to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue in light of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was indeed below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per Circular No. 03/2018. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT's circular is binding on the Income-tax authorities. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be pressed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim, while ultimately found to be unsustainable, was not a false claim. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, it was determined that a claim, even if wrong, does not automatically attract penalty if all details were available to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be pressed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be pressed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the comparables selected by both the assessee and the TPO were functionally different. It also noted that the TPO/DRP did not adequately consider the details submitted by the assessee regarding management and support services.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was indeed below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity to explain the penalty and that the appeal on the quantum issue was pending before the ITAT, subject to a miscellaneous application. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be pressed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of scrap sales needed to be remanded back to the AO for proper examination of the nature of the sales and accounting. The addition for low declaration of income was deleted as the amount was offered to tax in the subsequent year.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the departmental appeal was below the monetary limit for filing appeals. Regarding the WCT, the Tribunal held that since the liability crystallized and was paid by customers on behalf of the assessee during the year, it was an allowable business expenditure under Section 37, not restricted by Section 43B.

The Tribunal, noting the absence of the assessee and the lack of any request for adjournment, concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the allowability of portfolio management fees and interest costs in light of relevant case law and the assessee's computation statement.

The tribunal held that the appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per Circular No. 3/2018. The circular's revised monetary limits apply retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that foreign exchange fluctuations are part of business income eligible for Section 10AA deduction. It also ruled that telecommunication and migration/training expenses should be treated uniformly in the numerator and denominator for calculating the deduction. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the interest rate allowed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the CBDT's circular is binding on the tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution. For AY 2003-04, the revenue's appeal was allowed, with the protective addition to continue until the substantive addition for AY 2002-03 is finally confirmed.

The Tribunal restored the file to the CIT(E) for reconsideration of the application. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully in the proceedings to allow for proper opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal found that the original trust deed, produced before it, contained the date of creation and trustee signatures, and also had clauses for appointing new trustees. Therefore, the CIT's objections were found to be non-existent in the original document.

The Tribunal held that the assessees' explanation regarding the substantial work involved in furnishing information for multiple assessment years following a search was plausible. Since assessments were completed under section 143(3) and not under section 144, the penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that five specific comparable companies (Engineers India, HSCC (India), RITES Ltd., TCE Consultancy Engineering Ltd., and IBI Chematur) were not appropriate due to dissimilar functional profiles, government customer base with limited risk, or lack of segmental bifurcation. Consequently, these comparables were directed to be excluded.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be pressed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the assessees' explanation regarding the substantial work involved in furnishing information for multiple assessment years following a search was plausible. Since assessments were completed under section 143(3) and not under section 144, the penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of scrap sales needed to be remanded back to the AO for proper examination of the nature of the sales and accounting. The addition for low declaration of income was deleted as the amount was offered to tax in the subsequent year.