ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2018

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 assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations and credible evidence for the source of the gold coins and cash found. The explanations regarding the advance for property sale were also deemed an afterthought and unsupported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Revenue conceded this position.

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 assessee cannot be fastened with liability for short deduction if the cancellation of the LTDC was not properly communicated. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the cancellation order and its communication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be fastened with liability for short deduction if the cancellation of the LTDC was not properly communicated. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the cancellation order and its communication.

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 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 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 since the addition giving rise to the penalty was deleted in the assessee's quantum appeal, the foundation of the penalty collapsed. Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained.

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 assessee is the actual and constructive owner of the property purchased in his son's name, and Section 54F should be interpreted liberally. The disallowance of deductions under Section 54B and 54F by the CIT(A) was challenged.

The Tribunal found that it was unclear if the last hearing date was properly communicated to the assessee. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

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 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 rectification was indeed time-barred because the AO sought to amend issues not covered by the earlier order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order. The limitation period should be reckoned from the original assessment order, not the subsequent order giving effect to an appeal.

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 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 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 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 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 found that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence for the business use of the premises. However, the Assessing Officer's estimation of fair market rent was also found to be without basis.

The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 263, which was the basis for the assessment and penalty proceedings, had been quashed, the current appeals did not survive. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 263, which was the basis for the assessment and penalty proceedings, had been quashed, the current appeals did not survive. Therefore, the appeals were 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 the provision for price reduction was related to sales made in the relevant year and that the liability, though crystallized later, existed at the year-end. The Tribunal also considered the warranty provision, directing the AO to allow it if based on actual bills.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 CIT(A) had correctly allowed the deduction under Section 80IC. The Tribunal found that manufacturing activity was indeed carried out by the assessee in the relevant assessment year, as supported by the remand report and other evidence.