ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s restriction of the addition to Rs. 19,87,460/-, but deleted the additional 2% commission charge as it was made without proper notice.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of rights in the plot constituted a transfer of a capital asset. However, since no value was assessed by the stamp valuation authority at the time of transfer, the market value determined by the AO based on an ITI report could not be substituted for the actual consideration received.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not verify the conditions for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad). Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for verification and to decide the claim as per law.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. Consequently, the departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the non-service of notice was solely attributable to the conduct of the assessee, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal diligently. Following established legal principles, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. Consequently, the departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. Consequently, the departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. Consequently, the departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the matter, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant. The appeal was treated as unadmitted due to non-prosecution.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 directs the Department not to file appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20 lakhs, and this applies retrospectively. The Senior DR did not press the appeal in view of this circular.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, finding no infirmity in the reasoning. For interest expenses, the CIT(A)'s reasoned order was also upheld. The issue of prepaid license fees was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal in light of this circular.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the gross freight amount was not the assessee's receipt or income. The assessee acted as an intermediary, collecting and distributing freight to its members who owned the trucks.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied on the disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC, which included interest on FDRs, miscellaneous interest income, and foreign exchange fluctuation. The AO considered the excess claim of deduction as furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which mandates not filing or withdrawing appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-appearance indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied had been deleted in the quantum proceedings by the Tribunal itself, the penalty could not be sustained.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 20,00,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the quantum of the dispute was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 for revenue appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and bona fide reasons for not deducting TDS, especially since the tax was voluntarily deposited before the default came to the department's notice. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the issues raised were already subject to appeal before the CIT(A) and had been decided. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order, restoring the AO's assessment.

The Tribunal held that donations in kind or cash to other charitable organizations, colleges, and expenses for activities like tree plantation and marathons constitute application of income for charitable purposes. The CIT(Appeals)'s disallowance based on the trust not directly incurring the expenses or on a misinterpretation of Section 13(3)(d) was found to be untenable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was to be dismissed as withdrawn. This was because the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular was binding on tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 20,00,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IC cannot be denied solely because the claim was made in a revised return (filed within the stipulated time) instead of the original return. The claim can be entertained at the appellate stage if all conditions are met.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IC cannot be denied solely because the claim was made in a revised return (filed within the stipulated time) instead of the original return. The claim can be entertained at the appellate stage if all conditions are met.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IC cannot be denied solely because the claim was made in a revised return (filed within the stipulated time) instead of the original return. The claim can be entertained at the appellate stage if all conditions are met.

The Tribunal is hearing cross-appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue. The specific decisions on the merits of the appeals are not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the material received from the Investigation Wing. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and all subsequent orders were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not examine whether the interest was paid on borrowed capital used for asset acquisition. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decision for the assessment year 2009-10, where similar loans to the same AEs were decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the ALP of the interest at 6% for the AEs in question.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding instructions of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issues concerning disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) and Section 37(1) back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision. The Assessing Officer was also directed to verify the credit for taxes paid/deducted.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in the CBDT circular. The circular's instructions are binding on the tax authorities.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in the CBDT circular. The circular's instructions are binding on the tax authorities.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in the CBDT circular. The circular's instructions are binding on the tax authorities.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in the CBDT circular. The circular's instructions are binding on the tax authorities.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in the CBDT circular. The circular's instructions are binding on the tax authorities.

The tribunal directed the deletion of disallowance made under section 40(2)(b) r.w.s. 92CA. Regarding the disallowance of provision for bonus, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to examine if it was made on a rational or scientific basis.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact charge for levying the penalty, which is a mandatory requirement. The introduction of Section 271(1B) does not dispense with this requirement.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in the CBDT circular. The circular's instructions are binding on the tax authorities.