ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2018

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that it was not clear from the CIT(A)'s order whether notice was actually served on the assessee. Even if the assessee did not appear, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that disallowances in purchases ultimately increase profits, which are eligible for deduction under Section 80IC. Similarly, disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) also enhance profits eligible for Section 80IC deduction, as clarified by a CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000 are not maintainable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into their merits.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular dated July 11, 2018, which revised the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs, is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the Revenue should not have pressed these appeals.

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, was set aside, the penalty proceedings had become infructuous. Therefore, the penalty order and the proceedings were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the Revenue should not have pressed the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that while the transaction could be considered a deemed dividend, it should be taxed in the hands of the shareholder (holding company) and not the borrowing subsidiary. Therefore, the addition made in the hands of the assessee was deleted.

The Tribunal held that surrendering an exemption claim due to repetitive queries does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had claimed exemption as per law, and the AO's assumption about penny stocks was not sufficiently substantiated.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000 are not maintainable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into their merits.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000 are not maintainable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into their merits.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000 are not maintainable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into their merits.

The Tribunal held that surrendering an exemption claim due to repetitive queries does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had claimed exemption as per law, and the AO's assumption about penny stocks was not sufficiently substantiated.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000 are not maintainable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into their merits.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000 are not maintainable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into their merits.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was already registered under Section 12AA. The appeals concerning denial of exemption were set aside to the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh after the CIT(E) decides on the registration issue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was already registered under Section 12AA. The appeals concerning denial of exemption were set aside to the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh after the CIT(E) decides on the registration issue.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases was not justified due to the retraction of the statement by the vendor and voluminous documentary evidence. The issue of ROC fees was restored to the AO for fresh examination regarding its use for working capital.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that all appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the applicable CBDT circular. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous because the main appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, which revised the monetary limit for not filing appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/-, was applicable retrospectively. Since the tax effect in the instant appeals was less than this limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, which revised the monetary limit for not filing appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/-, was applicable retrospectively. Since the tax effect in the instant appeals was less than this limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that all appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the applicable CBDT circular. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous because the main appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that all appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the applicable CBDT circular. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous because the main appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that as the tax effect in the appeals was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular, the appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The Revenue was directed to withdraw or not press such appeals.

The Tribunal held that if the addition on which a penalty is levied is deleted, there is no basis for the penalty to survive. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the cases.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, which revised the monetary limit for not filing appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/-, was applicable retrospectively. Since the tax effect in the instant appeals was less than this limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, which revised the monetary limit for not filing appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/-, was applicable retrospectively. Since the tax effect in the instant appeals was less than this limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, which revised the monetary limit for not filing appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/-, was applicable retrospectively. Since the tax effect in the instant appeals was less than this limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, which revised the monetary limit for not filing appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/-, was applicable retrospectively. Since the tax effect in the instant appeals was less than this limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, which revised the monetary limit for not filing appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/-, was applicable retrospectively. Since the tax effect in the instant appeals was less than this limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, which revised the monetary limit for not filing appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/-, was applicable retrospectively. Since the tax effect in the instant appeals was less than this limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the liability accrued during the period for which profits were computed, making it an ascertained liability deductible under the mercantile system of accounting. The appeal regarding molasses reserve fund was dismissed, and the appeal concerning scrap sale estimation was affirmed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.