ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal held that the fair market value of shares should be determined considering all assets, including the fair market value of land after its conversion for institutional use. The assessee's valuation based on the land's market value was found to be higher than the issue price.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not served in accordance with law as it was sent to a wrong address, and the assessee was regularly assessed in Kanpur. Therefore, the entire reassessment proceedings were void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit specified by the CBDT. The circular applies to all pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order suffered from multiple infirmities, including uncertainty regarding the admissibility of additional evidence, being a non-speaking order, and failure to observe principles of natural justice by not giving the AO an opportunity to rebut the evidence. Therefore, the order was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the appeal on merits after condoning the delay, given the reasonable cause presented by the assessee and the subsequent e-filing. The appeal is therefore remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the AO passed an ex-parte order without sufficient opportunity for the assessee and the CIT(A) did not allow additional evidence. In the interest of justice, the issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

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. Consequently, the Assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets monetary limits for appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed transferred the land before the relevant assessment years. Since the assessee was not making any payments to the Noida authority after the transfer, there was no liability to deduct TDS. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals and that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not imposable in the absence of a recorded satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer. Regarding the Section 263 issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT correctly invoked the section as there was an escapement of income due to the AO's failure to tax income from other sources.

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. Consequently, the Assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming an addition of Rs. 16,16,500/- under Section 68. It held that Section 68 is applicable to unexplained cash credits, including donations, and is not superseded by Section 115BBC. Corpus donations are not covered by the exception for donations offered as income.

The Tribunal held that the mere non-response of parties to notices issued under Section 133(6) is not sufficient grounds to deem expenses as not genuine. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of co-ordinate benches in similar cases and High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated due to a lack of proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority. Furthermore, the addition made under Section 40A(3) was not on the original ground for reopening.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was inserted w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and held to be retrospective, could exempt the assessee from being an assessee in default if requisite information is furnished. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The circular revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The appeal was dismissed in limine without going into the merits.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals and that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs are not maintainable. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if specific instances warranting exceptions come to light.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals and that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs are not maintainable. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if specific instances warranting exceptions come to light.

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. Consequently, the Assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed transferred the land before the relevant assessment years. Since the assessee was not making any payments to the Noida authority after the transfer, there was no liability to deduct TDS. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

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 CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Ld. DR could not provide any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest on late TDS to the AO for further opportunity to the assessee. The disallowance of demurrage charges was set aside and allowed. The Pooja expenses were partly allowed, with expenses for the company's anniversary to be allowed and day-to-day office Pooja expenses to be disallowed.

The Tribunal held that the difference in stock valuation was due to different methods and not undisclosed income. It also found that the interest-free advance was justified by sufficient own funds, and liquidated damages were a commercial expediency, not a penalty for law infringement.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT's instructions on litigation management.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) and cooperate in the proceedings, avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer's file. The AO is directed to allow the assessee to substantiate the outcome of the issues raised by the Development Commissioner and decide both the deduction and duty drawback claims based on facts and law, considering previous rulings.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals and that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs are not maintainable. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if specific instances warranting exceptions come to light.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of a recorded satisfaction note by the AO regarding concealment or inaccurate particulars, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable. Regarding the Section 263 issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT had correctly invoked the provisions, and the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of a recorded satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer regarding concealment or inaccurate particulars, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. Regarding the Section 263 issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT correctly invoked the section as there was an escapement of income due to the Assessing Officer's failure to tax income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals and that the appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable as the tax effect is below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits for amounts claimed from Anil Sachdeva, Sanjay Khattar, and Bhawna Narula, as these individuals denied their affidavits and the assessee failed to produce Bhawna Narula.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals and that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs are not maintainable. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if specific instances warranting exceptions come to light.

The Tribunal, while noting the non-cooperation, decided to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessees for substantial justice. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, while noting the non-cooperation, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee for substantial justice. The issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was void ab initio due to non-service and discrepancies in address and name. Consequently, the assessment order passed without proper service of notice is invalid.

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. Consequently, the Assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.

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. Consequently, the Assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals and that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs are not maintainable. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if specific instances warranting exceptions come to light.

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. Consequently, the Assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the ex-parte assessment was passed without sufficient opportunity. The Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to the low tax effect. The CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals were applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.