ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Department's appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit. Following the CBDT circular, the Departmental appeal was not pressed and was dismissed. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the hotel commenced operations on the stated date. Therefore, capitalizing interest on loans for a completed asset was not justified.

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

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables used by the TPO, finding them functionally dissimilar or having abnormal margins. Consequently, the proposed transfer pricing adjustment was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a proper claim before the AO by submitting a registered valuer's report, which led the AO to refer the matter to the DVO. Therefore, the capital gains should be computed based on the DVO's valuation of Rs. 21.78 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, since the assessment was completed based on the revised nil income, and no incriminating material was found during the search, the penalty could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's rectification order under Section 154 was bad in law as the assessment order had merged with the CIT(A)'s order. For the quantum additions, the Tribunal remanded the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of documents and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the activities performed by BEL constituted assembling of raw materials as per the assessee's specifications, and did not involve technical consultancy. Therefore, the payments fell under Section 194C and not Section 194J.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, since the assessment was completed based on the revised nil income, and no incriminating material was found during the search, the penalty could not be sustained.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established rules and precedents, the appeal was treated as un-admitted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, since the assessment was completed based on the revised nil income, and no incriminating material was found during the search, the penalty could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, since the assessment was completed based on the revised nil income, and no incriminating material was found during the search, the penalty could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the netting of interest paid on overdraft against interest earned on FDs is allowable as the overdraft was availed against the FDs to protect the source of income. However, the claim for short-term capital loss on pledged shares was denied as the loss belonged to the borrower, not the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, since the assessment was completed based on the revised nil income, and no incriminating material was found during the search, the penalty could not be sustained.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that since the AO accepted the quantum of cash sales and deposits in other bank accounts (current and OD) from these sales, there was no reason to doubt the deposits in the savings bank account, especially when these funds were later transferred to the other accounts.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied were deleted, there was no basis for the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was liable to be cancelled.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Mold-Tek Technologies Limited as a comparable for transfer pricing purposes due to functional dissimilarity and abnormal profit margins. The Tribunal also confirmed the allowance of the Section 10A deduction, relying on previous decisions of the ITAT and the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT at Rs. 20 lakhs. The circular also allowed for withdrawal or non-pressing of pending appeals below this limit.

The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawals from the bank accounts of the assessee and his spouse were substantial and sufficient to explain the cash payment for the car. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence to suggest the cash was used for other purposes.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Revenue should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

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 held that the purchases were genuine, supported by bills, vouchers, PAN, VAT, TIN details, and payments made via account payee cheques. The Tribunal found no evidence of cash recycling and distinguished the case from those where incriminating documents were found.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been filed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Revenue should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Revenue should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Revenue should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The tribunal held that the assessee had lost interest in the matter due to their consistent absence. Following precedent, the tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal, inferring that the assessee had lost interest in the matter, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. This decision was made in accordance with established tribunal rules and precedents.

The Tribunal held that the relationship between the assessee (wholesale dealer) and its sub-dealers was not one of principal-agent, unlike the relationship between telecom operators and wholesale dealers. Therefore, the incentive payments were not commission attracting TDS under Section 194H, and the assessment order was not prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the higher stamp duty value was a compulsion of the Stamp Act and not necessarily indicative of undervaluation by the assessee. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the Tribunal found no justification for the addition.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Revenue should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances were identical to other assessment years where similar penalties were deleted. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance, as per Section 273B of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Revenue should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for failing to attend the proceedings, as the key person managing tax matters was in judicial custody. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) could not be imposed.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessment under Section 153A could not be made by revisiting the completed assessment. Therefore, the assessment order framed under Section 153A was quashed.

The ITAT held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular's revised monetary limits were applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circular. The circular mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals with a tax effect below the specified limit.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Revenue should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 20,00,000/- and that pending appeals with a tax effect below this limit should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the department's appeal should not have been filed due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection by directing the AO not to make disallowances on interest, insurance, and depreciation on cars, while confirming other disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred in terms of contractual obligations with employees and contributed to business objectives by fostering a committed workforce. The Tribunal found no justification for the disallowance, especially as the assessee had offered premiums for distant relatives to tax.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, read with Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be filed before the Tribunal. The circular also applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that a lump sum payment for a long-term lease of land is not in the nature of rent under Section 194-I. Furthermore, even if considered rent, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default as the recipient had offered the income and paid tax on it.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Revenue should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Revenue should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the CBDT circular. The circular is applicable to pending appeals and instructs withdrawal of appeals below the specified monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were genuine as payments were made by account payee cheques, supported by bills, and reflected in bank statements. The Tribunal found no evidence of cash recycling and distinguished the facts from cases where additions were upheld.