ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2018

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 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 allowed the assessee's request to withdraw all appeals. Since the Supreme Court's decision on electricity rates rendered the appeals academic, further adjudication was deemed unnecessary.

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 tax effect of the assessed income was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03/2008 for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

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 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 Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw all appeals. Since the Supreme Court's decision on electricity rates rendered the appeals academic, further adjudication was deemed unnecessary.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw all appeals. Since the Supreme Court's decision on electricity rates rendered the appeals academic, further adjudication was deemed unnecessary.

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 inferred that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to repeated absence. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal without delving into the merits of the case.

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 found that the CIT(Appeals) decided the case ex parte without considering the merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular, with retrospective effect, directs the Revenue not to prefer appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal did not appear to be covered by the exceptions to the CBDT circular. Delaying disposal for a report was deemed against the spirit of the circular.

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

The Tribunal held that the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Delaying the disposal for a report from field officers was not in the spirit of the circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not covered by the exceptions allowing contestation despite low tax effect. Therefore, the appeals were 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, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal did not appear to fall under any of the exceptions to the CBDT circular. Delaying disposal for a report from field officers would not be in the spirit of the circular.

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

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

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

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not covered by the exceptions allowing contestation despite low tax effect. Therefore, the appeals were 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 for a report from field officers was deemed inappropriate.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, which mandate withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals below a certain monetary limit.

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 justified.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not covered by any exceptions to the CBDT circular and therefore dismissed it. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if the appeal fell under an exception.

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 noted that the appeal by the Revenue should not have been pressed given the low tax effect and the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

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

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 Revenue's appeal did not appear to fall under any of the exceptions to the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine, with liberty to seek recall if it met an exception.

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

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not covered by any exceptions to the CBDT circular and that delaying disposal for a report from field officers would not be in the spirit of the circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on a CBDT Circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals. The circular mandated withdrawal or non-pressing of pending appeals below the specified tax limit.

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 in terms of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeals filed by the Revenue should not have been pressed. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine.