ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below Rs. 20 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable.

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 noted that the tax effect was indeed below Rs. 20 lakhs. Following the CBDT circular which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

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 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 penalty was unsustainable because the assessee had reasonable cause for non-compliance, including the detention of a key person and the large number of group assessments. Compliances were made through belated replies.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should be restricted to 30% of the total addition on account of non-deduction of TDS, respectfully following a coordinate bench decision. The assessee's request for allowing the disallowance in subsequent years was directed to be made via an appropriate application to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. Pending appeals with a monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs were to be treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not have sufficient justification to reject the assessee's books of accounts. The assessee provided explanations and supporting documents for the variations, and the AO's calculations were deemed hypothetical.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merit after condoning the delay due to the assessee's old age and illness. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being 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 assessee was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal found that non-issuance of the Section 274(1) notice is a jurisdictional issue that vitiates the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal given the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, which set monetary limits for filing appeals. The circular also mandates withdrawing or not pressing appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed limit.

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 non-issuance of the Section 274(1) notice is a jurisdictional issue that vitiates the penalty.

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 assessee was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal found that non-issuance of the Section 274(1) notice is a jurisdictional issue that vitiates the penalty.

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 non-issuance of the Section 274(1) notice is a jurisdictional issue that vitiates the penalty.

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 non-issuance of the Section 274(1) notice is a jurisdictional issue that vitiates the penalty.

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 non-issuance of the Section 274(1) notice is a jurisdictional issue that vitiates the penalty.

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 disallowances related to business activity should lead to a proportionate increase in the Section 80IC deduction, as per CBDT Circular No. 37/2016. Therefore, the assessee should be allowed deduction on the fully enhanced income.

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 non-issuance of the Section 274(1) notice is a jurisdictional issue that vitiates the penalty.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merit after condoning the delay due to the assessee's old age and illness. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Revenue authorities. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below Rs. 20 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay, considering the assessee's old age and illness. The CIT(A) was instructed to decide the appeal on its merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that if a loan is advanced in the normal course of business for earning interest, it does not fall under the ambit of deemed dividend. The Tribunal noted that the company received interest on such advances, and the transaction was commercial in nature.

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, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed that a mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording satisfaction of failure.

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, and the assessee was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. This violated principles of natural justice and vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer.

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, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed that a mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording satisfaction of failure.

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, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed that a mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording satisfaction of failure.

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, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed that a mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording satisfaction of failure.

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 unsustainable because no statutory notice under section 274(1) was issued to the assessee, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed that a mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording satisfaction of failure.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied 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 non-issuance of such notice vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied 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 non-issuance of such notice vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer.

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 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 penalty levied 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 non-issuance of such notice vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the denial of an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the denial of an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

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 CBDT circular is binding on the tax authorities. Since the tax effect in this appeal was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the denial of an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the denial of an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 274(1) and the denial of an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect. The circular mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals below the specified monetary limit.

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 AO did not apply his mind to the available material and recorded incorrect reasons for reopening the assessment. The reopening was based on the assumption that the assessee had nothing to say, which is not a valid ground for reassessment.

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 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 is not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The circular is binding on the revenue authorities.