ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal held that Section 234E mandates the payment of fees for late filing of TDS returns and does not provide for waiver on grounds of procedural delay or no loss to revenue. The levy is for regularization of delayed submissions and compensates for the additional administrative burden on the department.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, appeals with a tax effect below this limit are to be treated as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the CBDT Circulars which set monetary limits for filing appeals before the Tribunal, and the tax effect in this case was below the specified limit.

The Tribunal held that since a working capital adjustment was already granted, which accounts for outstanding receivables, a separate adjustment for notional interest on overdue receivables would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kusum Healthcare Private Limited.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an opportunity of hearing and did not consider the assessee's withdrawal application before dismissing the appeal. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, appeals with a tax effect below this limit are to be treated as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing him to provide the assessee with another opportunity to substantiate the commission payment. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not adequately explained the allowability of the commission.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate its case regarding the loan and its genuineness.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, applied to pending appeals. As the tax effect was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in discarding the registered valuer's report without referring the matter to the DVO. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the fair market value based on the registered valuer's rate.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT circular and its subsequent clarification. The merits of the case were not considered.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT circular and its subsequent clarification. The merits of the case were not considered.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT circular and its subsequent clarification. The merits of the case were not considered.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the assessee were salary and perquisites, not contributions to a superannuation fund, as the assessee was a full-time employee of Amway India and the arrangement was for administrative convenience. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that no proper notice was received, leading to an ex-parte order violating natural justice. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The assessee's Authorized Representative sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal granted this permission.

The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method used by the assessee for sale of finished goods was not appropriate due to flawed comparison. However, it directed the TPO to allow working capital and capacity utilization adjustments when applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). For the purchase of fixed assets, the Tribunal restored the issue to the TPO to treat the AE as the tested party.

The Tribunal held that membership fees received in advance are chargeable to tax on an accrual basis, and non-refundable security deposits are capital receipts not taxable as income. This decision was based on previous rulings for similar issues.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue are not maintainable as the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue are not maintainable as the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that membership fees received in advance are chargeable to tax on an accrual basis, and non-refundable security deposits are capital receipts not taxable as income. This decision was based on previous rulings for similar issues.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which was applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that membership fees received in advance are chargeable to tax on an accrual basis, and non-refundable security deposits are capital receipts not taxable as income. This decision was based on previous rulings for similar issues.

The Tribunal held that membership fees received in advance are chargeable to tax on an accrual basis, and non-refundable security deposits are capital receipts not taxable as income. This decision was based on previous rulings for similar issues.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the assessee were salary and perquisites, not contributions to a superannuation fund, as the assessee was a full-time employee of Amway India and the arrangement was for administrative convenience. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Ld. DR could not provide any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The Ld. DR could not provide any exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, departmental appeals before ITAT shall not be filed if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 lacs. Since the tax effect in this case was less than the specified limit, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than the monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular was also clarified to be applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that membership fees received in advance are chargeable to tax on an accrual basis, and non-refundable security deposits are capital receipts not taxable as income. This decision was based on previous rulings for similar issues.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, applied to pending appeals. As the tax effect was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue are not maintainable as the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that membership fees received in advance are chargeable to tax on an accrual basis, and non-refundable security deposits are capital receipts not taxable as income. This decision was based on previous rulings for similar issues.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, applied to pending appeals. As the tax effect was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue are not maintainable as the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department to the Tribunal to Rs. 50 lakhs. As the tax effect in these appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the revised CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the revised CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the revised CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department to the Tribunal to Rs. 50 lakhs. As the tax effect in these appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the revised CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals do not survive for consideration due to the revised monetary limits specified in the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not in consonance with the revised CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.