ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2019

The Tribunal held that CCM up to 1% of total transactions is permissible without penalty and that the assessee is not a member of the exchange and cannot execute CCM. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider the facts of the case and relied heavily on general information about CCM misuse. The Tribunal found that the CCM corrections were nominal, the broker confirmed their genuineness, and there was no evidence of under-hand commission.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was time-barred due to the assessee's negligence in not filing a condonation petition and the lack of acceptable reasons for the delay. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court observations regarding the diligence expected from government departments.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Department and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable as the tax effect is below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the tax authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable as the tax effect is below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground and found merit in the assessee's contention that the authorities below failed to consider the proviso to Section 201(1). Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Department was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The assessee's cross-objection was permitted to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal followed a precedent where if the difference between the assessee's valuation and the DVO's valuation is less than 10%, the difference should be ignored. The addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was found to be not tenable and was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to business expenses, unexplained loans, and household expenses. It also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings, finding them to be validly initiated.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as they did not meet the enhanced threshold.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. This circular applies to all pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. The Revenue's representative did not press the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid because they did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This lack of clarity rendered the penalty orders unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid because they did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This lack of clarity rendered the penalty orders unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision on identical facts where similar disallowances were deleted. The Tribunal held that the interest earned on deposits with a cooperative bank falls within the exemption granted by Section 80P(2)(d) and also under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the funds were kept for the purpose of business.

The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute required reconsideration by the CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment was granted in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind, making the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the reassessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as they did not meet the enhanced threshold.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as they did not meet the enhanced threshold.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid because they did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This lack of clarity rendered the penalty orders unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid because they did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This lack of clarity rendered the penalty orders unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that when the quantum of income is under dispute and has been set aside, the penalty issues should also be set aside to the first appellate authority to be decided after the quantum appeal is decided.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid because they did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This lack of clarity rendered the penalty orders unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without providing sufficient opportunity. The additional ground regarding the initiation of reassessment proceedings was admitted as it involved a legal issue.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment proceedings was mechanical, lacking due application of mind by the approving authority. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.