ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2018

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 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 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 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 quantum appeal, which formed the basis for the penalty, was allowed in favour of the assessee, the penalty order does not survive. Consequently, the appeal against the penalty was allowed.

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 additions related to undisclosed sales cannot be made without clear evidence found during the search, citing the Kabul Chawla judgment. Regarding bogus purchases, it was noted that if purchases were debited without actual receipt of goods, it inflated stock, and additions for stock shortage were not sustainable without evidence of sale and receipt of money.

The Tribunal held that additions related to undisclosed sales cannot be made without clear evidence found during the search. Regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal noted that if purchases were booked without receiving goods, it inflated stock, and without evidence of sale of such stock, additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that additions on account of undisclosed sales cannot be made without clear evidence found during the search. Regarding bogus purchases, it was noted that if purchases were inflated in the books, it did not automatically imply sale of stock out of books without evidence.

The Tribunal held that additions related to undisclosed sales cannot be made without clear evidence found during the search. It also found that since bogus purchases were booked, inflating stock, additions for stock shortage were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable as the assessee had provided full details of the loans, and the disallowance was only a partial restriction of the original addition. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that additions related to undisclosed sales cannot be made without clear evidence found during the search. It also found that since bogus purchases were booked, inflating stock, additions for stock shortage were not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the addition for obsolete stock, finding the assessee's valuation method inconsistent. However, it directed the AO to re-value closing stock considering opening stock and slow-moving items, and allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 on the opening stock issue.

The ITAT observed that the assessee's counsel had a genuine medical difficulty. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to grant a proper opportunity to the assessee to present their case and file requisite details.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular prohibiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs is applicable retrospectively and to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular prohibiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs is applicable retrospectively and to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular prohibiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs is applicable retrospectively and to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that additions related to undisclosed sales cannot be made without clear evidence found during the search. It also found that since bogus purchases were booked, inflating stock, additions for stock shortage were not sustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in-limine due to the assessee's persistent non-appearance, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. However, the Tribunal reserved the discretion to recall the order if the assessee provided a satisfactory explanation for their absence.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular specifies a monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular prohibiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs is applicable retrospectively and to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that additions related to undisclosed sales cannot be made without clear evidence found during the search, citing the Kabul Chawla judgment. The addition for bogus purchases was also not upheld as the assessee had booked them without actual receipt of goods, inflating stock.

The Tribunal held that rental income from factory premises should be treated as 'Income from Business'. It directed the AO to re-verify job work receipts and expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of interest on loans as the assessee failed to establish their business utilization.

The Tribunal found that there were computational errors in the TPO's assessment regarding operational expenses and the margins of comparable companies. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the TPO's comparability analysis and directed the Assessing Officer to re-evaluate the comparables based on functions, risks, and assets.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000 for filing appeals, has statutory force. Since the tax effect was below this limit and no exclusion applied, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that additions related to undisclosed sales cannot be made without clear evidence found during the search. It also found that since bogus purchases were booked, inflating stock, additions for stock shortage were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular prohibiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs is applicable retrospectively and to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that additions related to undisclosed sales cannot be made without clear evidence found during the search. It also found that since bogus purchases were booked, inflating stock, additions for stock shortage were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular prohibiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs is applicable retrospectively and to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that additions related to undisclosed sales cannot be made without clear evidence found during the search, citing the Kabul Chawla judgment. It also found that additions for bogus purchases were not sustainable as the assessee had booked them without actual receipt of goods, inflating stock.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular prohibiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs is applicable retrospectively and to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that additions related to undisclosed sales cannot be made without clear evidence found during the search. It also found that since bogus purchases were booked, inflating stock, additions for stock shortage were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular prohibiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs is applicable retrospectively and to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal upheld the addition for obsolete stock, finding the assessee's valuation method inconsistent. However, it directed the AO to re-value closing stock considering opening stock and slow-moving items, and allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 on the opening stock issue.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular prohibiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs is applicable retrospectively and to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that additions related to undisclosed sales cannot be made without clear evidence found during the search. It also found that since bogus purchases were booked, inflating stock, additions for stock shortage were not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the addition for obsolete stock, finding the assessee's valuation method inconsistent. However, it directed the AO to re-value closing stock considering opening stock and slow-moving items, and allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 on the opening stock issue.

The Tribunal held that additions related to undisclosed sales cannot be made without clear evidence found during the search. It also found that since bogus purchases were booked, inflating stock, additions for stock shortage were not sustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for setting aside the order by explaining their non-appearance.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular prohibiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs is applicable retrospectively and to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10, finding that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions. For AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, remanding the Section 14A issue for fresh adjudication and dismissing grounds related to training and club expenses.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 20 lakhs, was applicable. The Tribunal found that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given this circular.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not adequately explain the source of the cash deposit. However, considering the additional evidence filed, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party, Gagan Arora, could not be used against the assessee without cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. Similarly, an addition of Rs. 10 lacs for AY 2014-15 was deleted as it was already considered in the estimation of MCX trading commission.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party, if not subjected to cross-examination, cannot be used against the assessee. It also found that certain additions were made without sufficient material or were already accounted for in the estimation of commission.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party, if not subjected to cross-examination, cannot be used against the assessee. It also found that certain additions were made without sufficient material or were already accounted for in the estimation of commission.