ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on a CBDT Circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 20 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty. The assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars as all facts were before the AO and the issue was a matter of interpretation of transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to establish the nature of its dealings for which OTC membership was sought or the reason for rejection. The lack of steps to recover the money also meant the conditions for claiming bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) were not met.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was set aside, the penalty appeal should also be remitted to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after the disposal of the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on a CBDT Circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 20 lakhs.

The assessee's counsel stated that the issue of double taxation regarding interest has been rectified by the Assessing Officer, and the assessee has no further grievance. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made detailed inquiries and verified the assessee's claims regarding exempt income and expenditure disallowance. Merely because the assessment order was silent, it could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements, ITRs, and confirmations, to prove the genuineness of the unsecured loans. The Tribunal found that the transactions were conducted through banking channels and that the lenders had sufficient capacity to provide the loans.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 263 of the Act were bad in law and quashed them. Consequently, the consequential assessment proceedings were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on a CBDT Circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 20 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were issued to a non-existent person, as both companies, Optimed Private Ltd and Olympus Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, had their names struck off and were dissolved by the Registrar of Companies prior to the issuance of the notices. The Tribunal reasoned that no assessment can be framed on a dead person. Therefore, the assessments framed in the case of the appellants were considered bad in law and deserved to be quashed. The ratio decidendi is that a legal entity that has been dissolved and struck off the register ceases to exist, and any subsequent legal proceedings, including income tax assessments, initiated against it are void ab initio. The operative direction was to quash the assessments.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Department should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. The CIT(DR) did not press the appeal in light of this circular.

The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were issued to a non-existent person, as both companies, Optimed Private Ltd and Olympus Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, had their names struck off and were dissolved by the Registrar of Companies prior to the issuance of the notices. The Tribunal reasoned that no assessment can be framed on a dead person. Therefore, the assessments framed in the case of the appellants were considered bad in law and deserved to be quashed. The ratio decidendi is that a legal entity that has been dissolved and struck off the register ceases to exist, and any subsequent legal proceedings, including income tax assessments, initiated against it are void ab initio. The operative direction was to quash the assessments.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits even if the assessee did not appear. The case was deemed fit for restoration to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court and the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that netting off of interest is permissible, citing a Supreme Court judgment. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the netting off of interest earned against interest paid.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order regarding Section 10A deduction and remitted it to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, considering additional evidence. The transfer pricing issue was also remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh determination of ALP.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, which was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular was also found to have retrospective effect.

The Tribunal accepted the submission that the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable and was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 263 of the Act were bad in law and quashed them. Consequently, the consequential assessment proceedings were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 263 of the Act were bad in law and quashed them. Consequently, the consequential assessment proceedings were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which stipulated a monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs for filing appeals before the ITAT. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, which was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular was also found to have retrospective effect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on miscellaneous expenses, finding that debit notes were sufficient proof and the allocation was revenue-neutral. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition on unutilized MODVAT credit, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s analysis of Section 145A and relevant case law.

The ITAT held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect involved was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the cases.

The ITAT held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect involved was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the cases.

The ITAT held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect involved was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the cases.

The ITAT held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect involved was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the cases.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious in pursuing its appeal due to the lack of representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the appeal did not appear to fall under any of the exceptions to the CBDT circular. Therefore, delaying disposal by waiting for a report was not in the spirit of the circular.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-appearance indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following established legal precedents, the appeal was dismissed as un-admitted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal cannot be prosecuted without the assessee's appearance or representation. Following established legal precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as un-admitted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal did not appear to fall under any of the exceptions to the CBDT circular. Therefore, delaying the disposal of the appeal was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable as the dominant activity of IOA was promoting sports, not commercial business. It also held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their acquisition was treated as application of income for charitable purposes.

The ITAT held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect involved was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the cases.

The ITAT held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect involved was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the cases.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were not pressed and were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s rejection of the adjournment application on the first hearing date was incorrect. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing.

The ITAT held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect involved was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the cases.