ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal held that the delay in reflection on the departmental system cannot be attributed to the assessee. Since the assessee demonstrably paid the TDS on the due date and the amount was debited from their account, no interest is leviable.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate her case. The Tribunal found it appropriate to do so in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the issues were covered by previous ITAT and High Court orders in the assessee's own case, where it was established that the assessee's activities were charitable and not commercial. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue agreed with the assessee that the issues were covered by precedents.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the non-deduction of tax at source due to a bonafide belief and lack of contumacious conduct. The penalty under Section 271C was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the non-deduction of tax at source due to a bonafide belief and lack of contumacious conduct. The penalty under Section 271C was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the letting out of properties was the assessee's business, considering its objects and the nature of its activities. Therefore, the rental income should be assessed under the head 'Income from Business'.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were not sustainable because the Assessing Officer's notice under Section 271(1)(c)/274 was vague and ambiguous. The notice failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case, considering the FIR lodged for stolen records and the reconstruction of accounts.

The Tribunal held that passing a penalty order in the name of a non-existent, amalgamated company is a substantive illegality, not a procedural defect. Such an order is without jurisdiction and cannot be cured by the assessee's participation in the proceedings.

The Tribunal, after verifying the cash withdrawals from the bank statements, concluded that the disputed deposit of Rs. 4,92,900 was indeed from these withdrawals. Therefore, the addition made on account of unexplained cash deposit was not sustained.

The Tribunal noted that the same CIT(A) had deleted penalties in subsequent years on identical facts, relying on Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in confirming the penalty for the current year by not considering these binding precedents.

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 the CBDT circulars, which were also applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit specified by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal in light of the CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as not pressed.

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

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal granted the early hearing as both parties agreed the issue was covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case. Following the coordinate bench's decisions for earlier assessment years, the appeal was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit specified by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were conducted through stock exchanges with proper documentation and were not bogus. The Assessing Officer's reliance on an investigation report without direct evidence against the assessee was insufficient to invoke Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the specified limit.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were conducted through stock exchanges with proper documentation and were not bogus. The Assessing Officer's reliance on an investigation report without direct evidence against the assessee was insufficient to invoke Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were conducted through stock exchanges with proper documentation and were not bogus. The Assessing Officer's reliance on an investigation report without direct evidence against the assessee was insufficient to invoke Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which increased the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, applies to all pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. The assessee was directed to appear without adjournment, failing which the CIT(A) could pass orders as per law.

The Tribunal held that TDS is considered income received by the recipient and is paid by the assessee on behalf of the recipient. Therefore, even under the cash method, the TDS amount is considered paid by the assessee when it is deducted and remitted to the government within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the non-deduction of TDS, citing a clarification from the DTCP and a coordinate bench decision. Therefore, no penalty under Section 271C was leviable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments to set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not justified as the additional evidence, verified through remand proceedings by the Assessing Officer, showed that the balances tallied and the transactions were genuine. The Tribunal found that the credit balances were explained by purchases and the nature and source of credit were established.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The appeals were not pressed by the Revenue and were also found to be not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

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

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments to set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that according to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, departmental appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 lacs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the monetary limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that according to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, departmental appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 lacs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the monetary limit, they were not maintainable.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The appeals were not pressed by the Revenue and were also found to be not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, departmental appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 lacs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the specified limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was primarily because the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that if the budgeted revenue was indeed reduced, the AO's addition would not be sustainable. The issue requires verification by the AO, and the assessee must provide evidence of the contract value reduction.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, departmental appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 lacs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the specified limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that according to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, departmental appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 lacs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the monetary limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed was barred by limitation as it was made after the expiry of the period prescribed under Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the activities of the assessee authority are incidental to its main objective of town planning and thus entitled to exemption under Section 11. The assessee's registration under Section 12A was never cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the activities of the assessee authority are incidental to its main objective of town planning and thus entitled to exemption under Section 11. The assessee's registration under Section 12A was never cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the bad debts claimed were a business loss, as the land acquisition was disputed and litigation was pending. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as the assessee had no exempt income.

The Tribunal decided that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit. The appeal was dismissed based on the CBDT's instructions.

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