ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 3 lacs as it was made on an agreed basis. However, the addition of Rs. 35 lacs was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to procedural irregularities and denial of opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, following the Delhi High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla. The additions were deemed unsustainable as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search, and the assessment was not pending.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, following the Delhi High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla. The additions were deemed unsustainable as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search, and the assessment was not pending.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits related to maintenance charges from Datamation Consultants and electricity charges were sufficiently explained. The addition related to loans and advances was also deleted due to sufficient documentation provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal decided that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable because the tax effect was below the Rs. 50 lakhs limit specified in the CBDT Circular. The appeal was dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable because the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 50,00,000/-.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing him to grant the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate her claim for expenses and depreciation related to the leasing of a vehicle.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the CBDT circulars which set monetary limits for departmental appeals. The Assessee's Cross Objection was also dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as it did not meet the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeal was dismissed based on these circulars.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the approved valuer's report for the 1981 land valuation, as the assessee had the option to use it. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the short-term capital gain on the building should be taxed at concessional rates, as per Supreme Court precedent.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla. It ruled that additions under Section 153A are only sustainable if based on incriminating material found during the search, and when the assessment is not abated.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla. It ruled that additions under Section 153A are only sustainable if based on incriminating material found during the search, and when the assessment is not abated.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for tax effect, 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 and are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for tax effect, 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 and are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for tax effect, 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 and are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular was also applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under section 153A for different assessment years were consolidated and thus invalid, as separate notices are mandatory. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient reasons to believe the donations were anonymous, citing discrepancies in confirmation letters, ITRs, and bank statements. The AO's findings indicated that the donors' records were not properly maintained, leading to the conclusion that the donations were anonymous.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for tax effect, 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 and are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for tax effect, 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 and are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for tax effect, 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 and are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, having declared himself the beneficial owner and clubbed the entire capital gain, could not change his stand to claim separate exemption for his wife. The limit under Section 54EC was correctly applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the Assessing Officer recorded incorrect facts and did not apply independent mind to the information. It was further held that mere cash deposits in a bank account do not per se constitute escaped income.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT Circular. The circular was also applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that while the business activities might not have commenced, the disallowance of expenses solely on this ground without proving malafide intention or bogus claims was not justified. The Tribunal also deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under section 153A for different assessment years were consolidated and thus invalid, as separate notices are mandatory. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the issue of reopening under Section 148 was not adjudicated by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal held that the AO misunderstood the facts, as the labour and wages were paid partly in cash and partly through the bank. Since the assessee maintained audited books of account which were not rejected, the cash deposits were explained by the books of account and not on account of undisclosed income.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO, finding that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and quantum of agricultural income claimed. The evidence provided, such as affidavits and sale receipts without purchaser details, was deemed insufficient.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did shift its registered office, leading to document misplacement, and claimed no email intimation was received. Therefore, the interest of justice would be served by remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in deleting the addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had rectified the entries in subsequent years and offered the income for taxation, aligning with High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, continuation of pending suits is barred. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with until the insolvency proceedings concluded.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 clarifies that it is applicable to all pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit specified by the CBDT. The appeal was to be decided as per the CBDT's instructions.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, continuation of pending suits is barred. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with until the insolvency proceedings concluded.

The Tribunal considered the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which clarifies that the monetary limit is applicable to all pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a moratorium was declared, barring the continuation of pending suits. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with until the insolvency proceedings concluded.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circulars prescribe monetary limits for departmental appeals, which have been enhanced over time. Since the tax effect was below the enhanced limit, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, continuation of pending suits is barred. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with until the insolvency proceedings concluded.

The Tribunal, in light of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, decided to dismiss the revenue's appeal. The circular allows for the dismissal of pending appeals where the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit.