ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular raising the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs is applicable to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in this case was below the limit, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues raised by the Principal CIT during assessment. The Tribunal noted that interest paid to trustees was reasonable and utilized for trust purposes, and salaries paid to trustees were justified based on their qualifications and roles.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues raised by the Principal CIT during assessment. The Tribunal noted that interest paid to trustees was reasonable and utilized for trust purposes, and salaries paid to trustees were justified based on their qualifications and roles.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals and that the Revenue's appeals are not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues raised by the Principal CIT during assessment. The Tribunal noted that interest paid to trustees was reasonable and utilized for trust purposes, and salaries paid to trustees were justified based on their qualifications and roles.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues raised by the Principal CIT during assessment. The Tribunal noted that interest paid to trustees was reasonable and utilized for trust purposes, and salaries paid to trustees were justified based on their qualifications and roles.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal is not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues raised by the Principal CIT during assessment. The Tribunal noted that interest paid to trustees was reasonable and utilized for trust purposes, and salaries paid to trustees were justified based on their qualifications and roles.

The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for maintaining the business structure, including office maintenance and administrative contingencies, are allowable under Section 37, irrespective of whether sales were undertaken. Cash payments exceeding Rs. 10,000 were deleted due to the nature of expenses, and sales tax payments were allowed as legitimate business expenses.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues raised by the Principal CIT during assessment. The Tribunal noted that interest paid to trustees was reasonable and utilized for trust purposes, and salaries paid to trustees were justified based on their qualifications and roles.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for maintaining the business structure, including office maintenance and administrative contingencies, are allowable under Section 37, irrespective of whether sales were undertaken. Cash payments exceeding Rs. 10,000 were deleted due to the nature of expenses, and sales tax payments were allowed as legitimate business expenses.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues raised by the Principal CIT during assessment. The Tribunal noted that interest paid to trustees was reasonable and utilized for trust purposes, and salaries paid to trustees were justified based on their qualifications and roles.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues raised by the Principal CIT during assessment. The Tribunal noted that interest paid to trustees was reasonable and utilized for trust purposes, and salaries paid to trustees were justified based on their qualifications and roles.

The Tribunal held that accrued incentives are allowable as revenue expenditure. It also ruled that expenditure for enhancing the look of an existing TV channel logo is routine revenue expenditure, and written-off advances should be allowed as a business loss.

The Tribunal held that accrued incentives are allowable as revenue expenditure. It also ruled that expenditure for enhancing the look of an existing TV channel logo is routine revenue expenditure, and written-off advances should be allowed as a business loss.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the cash deposits and gifts.

The Tribunal held that accrued incentives are allowable as revenue expenditure. It also ruled that expenditure for enhancing the look of an existing TV channel logo is routine revenue expenditure, and written-off advances should be allowed as a business loss.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted in order to give effect to the Unilateral APA.

The Tribunal found that the delay was not attributable to the assessee's conduct and therefore extended the stay for a further period of six months.

The Tribunal held that accrued incentives are allowable as revenue expenditure. It also ruled that expenditure for enhancing the look of an existing TV channel logo is routine revenue expenditure, and written-off advances should be allowed as a business loss.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to present her case. The assessee was directed to appear without adjournment.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to provide the assessee an opportunity to substantiate her case. The assessee was also directed to appear before the CIT(A) and cooperate in the hearing.

The Tribunal agreed with both parties that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated on the applicability of Section 153C. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the validity of jurisdiction and then on merits.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs before the ITAT, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have focused solely on the objects and genuineness of the trust's activities, not on a related company. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs before the ITAT, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs before the ITAT, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and therefore not taxable. This decision was based on multiple Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that denying the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the addition was a serious flaw violating principles of natural justice. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and therefore not taxable. This decision was based on multiple Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not considered the CBDT Circular No. 1916 and that there were issues with the documentation (duplicate and missing pages in the punchnama). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and therefore not taxable. This decision was based on multiple Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and therefore not taxable. This decision was based on multiple Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal agreed with both parties that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated on the applicability of Section 153C. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the validity of jurisdiction and then on merits.

The Tribunal held that denying the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the addition was a serious flaw violating principles of natural justice. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not verified the assessee's claim of letting out only a part of the building and had relied solely on the lease deed. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT. As the Revenue could not demonstrate any exception to the circular, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable because the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine if the payee offered the interest income and paid tax on it. This is to consider the provisos to Section 40(a)(ia) and Section 201(1) regarding deemed TDS deduction and payment.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D to the average value of investments that yielded exempt income during the year. This followed a Special Bench decision regarding the computation of disallowance.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had already deleted the addition on which the penalty was levied. Therefore, since the addition itself did not survive, the penalty also could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and therefore not taxable. This decision was based on multiple Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs before the ITAT, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination, when statements of witnesses were used to make additions, is a serious flaw violating principles of natural justice. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries, the Tribunal deleted the disputed additions.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate her case, considering the assessment was completed ex-parte under Section 144 and the assessee's rural background.