ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2019

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 is 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(A) erred in dismissing the entire appeal without deciding all grounds on merits. It restored the ground related to undisclosed cash deposits for fresh adjudication and set aside the penalty order for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the entire appeal without deciding all grounds on merits. The appeal was partly allowed, with one ground restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

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

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must first record dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim of no expenditure before invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D. Since the AO did not prove any expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income, the disallowance was not permissible.

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 held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circular was binding on tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the gift, as no documentary evidence was produced before the lower authorities. The Tribunal also noted the lack of nexus between the donor's cash withdrawals and the assessee's cash deposits, and the absence of any explanation for not using banking channels.

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 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 dismissed the appeal as the Revenue did not press it due to the low tax effect. The appeal was also deemed not maintainable in light of the CBDT circulars enhancing the monetary threshold for appeals.

The Tribunal held that the lease deeds produced were dated appropriately for the assessment year, and the sale bills were supported by confirmations from the trader who was assessed to tax. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had explained sufficient household expenses.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment. It found no tangible material for reopening, and the AO's action was based on a change of opinion on the same facts available during the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50,00,000, is applicable to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below this limit, it was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality was not applicable as the assessee was a limited liability company and the surplus was retained for future advertising activities at the discretion of the holding company, not the franchisees.

The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality was not applicable as the assessee was a limited liability company and the surplus was retained for future advertising activities at the discretion of the holding company, not the franchisees.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the CBDT circulars which set monetary limits for departmental appeals, and the fact that the tax effect in this case was below the enhanced limit of Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality was not applicable as the assessee was a limited liability company and the surplus was retained for future advertising activities at the discretion of the holding company, not the franchisees.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed due to low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. The circular and its retrospective clarification were binding on the tax authorities.

The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence, finding it relevant to the tax liability. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court, the penalty cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court, the penalty could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court, the penalty could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality was not applicable as the assessee was a limited liability company and the surplus was retained for future advertising activities at the discretion of the holding company, not the franchisees.

The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality was not applicable as the assessee was a limited liability company and the surplus was retained for future advertising activities at the discretion of the holding company, not the franchisees.

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 fell below the enhanced limit of Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality was not applicable as the assessee was a limited liability company and the surplus was retained for future advertising activities at the discretion of the holding company, not the franchisees.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof to demonstrate the genuineness of the transactions, especially given the weak financials of the companies and the manifold increase in share prices. The CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition was upheld.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof to demonstrate the genuineness of the transactions, especially given the weak financials of the companies and the manifold increase in share prices. The CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the Revenue did not press it due to the low tax effect. The appeal was also deemed not maintainable based on the CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-.

The Tribunal held that since the underlying additions were deleted, the penalty levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars in relation to those additions cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing him to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to explain the credit entries in the bank account. The assessee was directed to appear and substantiate his case without adjournment.

The Tribunal held that since the primary additions on which the penalty was levied were deleted, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that ITO, Ward-24(3) lacked the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 as the assessee's jurisdiction vested with ITO, Ward-33(4). A notice issued without jurisdiction is void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that since the Section 263 order was quashed, the consequential fresh assessment order was void. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal, which was based on this void assessment order, had no legal standing.

The Tribunal restored the issue of exemption for the two flats to the CIT(A) for verification of payments made within the extended period under Section 139(4). The claim for the third flat was denied as it was considered a separate residential unit.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular, effective from its issue date, applied to pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as it was below the enhanced monetary limit.

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 restored the issue of exemption for the two flats to the CIT(A) for verification of payments made within the extended period under Section 139(4). The claim for the third flat was denied as it was considered a separate residential unit.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed based on the tax effect being below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not correct in assuming jurisdiction under section 263. It found that the Assessing Officer had considered the assessee's reply and passed a speaking order, and that the CIT(E) could not invoke section 263 merely because he disagreed with the Assessing Officer's view.

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 appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

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 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.