ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20,00,000/-. As the tax effect in these appeals fell below this limit, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw them.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable in view of the CBDT Circular raising the monetary limits for filing appeals. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unsustainable because no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee, denying them an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also noted that a mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording the requisite satisfaction.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the failure to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed that mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording satisfaction.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unsustainable because no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee, denying them an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also noted that a mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording the requisite satisfaction.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20,00,000/-. As the tax effect in these appeals fell below this limit, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw them.

The ITAT noted that the CBDT had revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal. As the tax effect in this appeal was below the revised limit, it was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unsustainable because no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee, denying them an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also noted that a mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording the requisite satisfaction.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the failure to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed that mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording satisfaction.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The assessee did not press their cross-objection.

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 274(1) before levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is a jurisdictional defect. This failure to provide an opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the failure to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed that mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording satisfaction.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20,00,000/-. As the tax effect in these appeals fell below this limit, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw them.

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 274(1) before levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is a jurisdictional defect. This failure to provide an opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the failure to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed that mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording satisfaction.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20,00,000/-. As the tax effect in these appeals fell below this limit, the Revenue was instructed to withdraw them.

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 274(1) before levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is a jurisdictional defect. This failure to provide an opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 274(1) before levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is a jurisdictional defect. This failure to provide an opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 274(1) before levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is a jurisdictional defect. This failure to provide an opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law because no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee, and the assessee was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. This non-compliance vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 274(1) before levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is a jurisdictional defect. This failure to provide an opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation regarding non-service of notice. It was decided that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Revenue authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lakhs, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law because no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee, and the assessee was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. This non-compliance vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 274(1) before levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is a jurisdictional defect. This failure to provide an opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a DVO's valuation report, and fair market value cannot be substituted for the actual sale consideration received. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld as it followed binding precedents.

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

The Tribunal held that the department 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 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 circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that employee contributions paid before the return filing due date are deductible, following Supreme Court precedents. The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue for examination of books of accounts.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that employee contributions paid before the return filing due date are deductible, following Supreme Court precedents. The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue for examination of books of accounts.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition was without basis as the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence for genuine purchases. The statement of the alleged provider of bogus bills was not admissible as evidence due to lack of cross-examination and the fact it was recorded during a survey, not under oath.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs stipulated by the CBDT circular. The circular's instructions are binding on the tax authorities.

The tribunal held that the non-issuance of a statutory notice under section 274(1) before levying a penalty under section 271(1)(b) is a jurisdictional defect. The principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 274(1) is a jurisdictional requirement for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b). Non-issuance of such notice and failure to provide an opportunity of being heard vitiates the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 274(1) prior to levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is a jurisdictional defect. The Tribunal further held that the penalty proceedings are vitiated for not affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance on labour expenses was unjustified as the assessee's financial results were better and no such disallowance was made in other years. The enhancement of commission expenses by the CIT(Appeals) was also deemed illegal as it was an issue not arising from the assessment order.

The tribunal held that the non-issuance of a statutory notice under section 274(1) before levying a penalty under section 271(1)(b) is a jurisdictional defect. The principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law because no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee, and the principles of natural justice were violated. The Tribunal found that the issuance of notice under Section 274(1) is a jurisdictional requirement.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law because no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee, and the principles of natural justice were violated. The Tribunal found that the issuance of notice under Section 274(1) is a jurisdictional requirement.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law because no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee, and the assessee was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal found that the issuance of notice under Section 274(1) is a jurisdictional issue, and its non-issuance vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law because no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee, and the principles of natural justice were violated. The Tribunal found that the issuance of notice under Section 274(1) is a jurisdictional requirement.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law because no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee, and the principles of natural justice were violated. The Tribunal found that the issuance of notice under Section 274(1) is a jurisdictional requirement.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law because no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee, and the principles of natural justice were violated. The Tribunal found that the issuance of notice under Section 274(1) is a jurisdictional requirement.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unsustainable due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the failure to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. This procedural lapse vitiated the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to impose the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unsustainable due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the failure to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. This procedural lapse vitiated the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to impose the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unsustainable due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the failure to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. This procedural lapse vitiated the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to impose the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition was without basis as the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence for genuine purchases. The statement of the alleged provider of bogus bills was not admissible as evidence due to lack of cross-examination and the fact it was recorded during a survey, not under oath.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unsustainable due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the failure to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. This procedural lapse vitiated the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to impose the penalty.