ITAT Kolkata Judgments — July 2018

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000 for appeals before the Tribunal, applies retrospectively. Since the tax effect in all these appeals was below the revised limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as they did not meet the minimum tax effect threshold specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was binding on revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000 for appeals before the Tribunal, applies retrospectively. Since the tax effect in all these appeals was below the revised limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) as the assessee had proved the bona fide by submitting sufficient evidence. For other disallowances, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular's revised monetary limits were also found to be applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as they did not meet the minimum tax effect threshold specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was binding on revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as they did not meet the minimum tax effect threshold specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was binding on revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000 for appeals before the Tribunal, applies retrospectively. Since the tax effect in all these appeals was below the revised limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000 for appeals before the Tribunal, applies retrospectively. Since the tax effect in all these appeals was below the revised limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000 for appeals before the Tribunal, applies retrospectively. Since the tax effect in all these appeals was below the revised limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders lacked proof of actual service of hearing notices and did not contain proper adjudication. Therefore, the cases were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that all Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The cross-objection was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that all Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The cross-objection was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that all Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The cross-objection was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that all Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The cross-objection was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular's revised monetary limits were also found to be applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular's revised monetary limits were also found to be applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular's revised monetary limits were also found to be applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as they did not meet the minimum tax effect threshold specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was binding on revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as they did not meet the minimum tax effect threshold specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was binding on revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as they did not meet the minimum tax effect threshold specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was binding on revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect in all the appeals was below the prescribed limit, the Revenue was not to press these appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as they did not meet the minimum tax effect threshold specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was binding on revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect in all the appeals was below the prescribed limit, the Revenue was not to press these appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000 for appeals before the Tribunal, applies retrospectively. Since the tax effect in all these appeals was below the revised limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect in all the appeals was below the prescribed limit, the Revenue was not to press these appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000 for appeals before the Tribunal, applies retrospectively. Since the tax effect in all these appeals was below the revised limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) as the assessee had proved the bona fide by submitting sufficient evidence. For other disallowances, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders lacked proof of actual service of hearing notices and did not contain proper adjudication. Therefore, the cases were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54 as the properties were held for more than 36 months and the sale proceeds were invested in a new residential house. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the admission of fresh evidence.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that all Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The cross-objection was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that all Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The cross-objection was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.