ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT. As no exceptions were cited, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, applying the CBDT circular which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals. The Revenue was given liberty to approach for recall if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the revised monetary limit specified by the CBDT. As no exceptions applied, the appeal was not pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, citing the CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, finding that its filing was not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, as its filing was not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty. For the first two grounds, the underlying additions were set aside or deleted in quantum proceedings. For the other two grounds, the penalty was not justified as the claims were made bona fide based on prevailing legal interpretations and subsequent allowance of depreciation in similar cases.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the revised monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. As no exceptions applied, the appeal was deemed withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. As no exceptions were cited, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was deemed to be withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, as its filing was not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT. Since no exceptions applied, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. As no exceptions were cited, the appeals were deemed withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. As no exceptions were cited, the appeals were deemed withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal, applying the CBDT circular, deemed the appeal withdrawn/not pressed. The Revenue was given liberty to approach for recall if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed because its filing was not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue can approach for recall if exceptions apply.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals did not fall under any exceptions to the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals did not fall under any exceptions to the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed below the revised monetary limit and were not covered by any exceptions. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed below the revised monetary limit and were not covered by any exceptions. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. As no exceptions were cited by the Revenue, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient documentation regarding the loans. The AO's failure to provide incriminating material and grant cross-examination opportunities violated principles of natural justice, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 20.00 lakhs or less are generally not to be pursued, unless they fall under specific exceptions. The revenue could not demonstrate that the issues in dispute fell under any exceptions.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition was based on an arbitrary rate of scrap without proper investigation or comparable rates for the specific business of the assessee. The CIT(A) had appreciated the facts on record in deleting the addition.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 20.00 lakhs or less are generally not to be pursued, unless they fall under specific exceptions. Since the issues did not appear to fall under any exceptions, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals in limine as the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The revenue was given liberty to move for recall if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018, which sets a monetary limit of ₹20 lacs for departmental appeals, applies to pending appeals as well. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions were applicable, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular which stipulated a monetary limit of ₹20 lacs for departmental appeals. Since the tax effect was below this limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular which stipulated a monetary limit of ₹ 20 lacs for departmental appeals. Since the tax effect was below this limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018, which sets a monetary limit of ₹20 lacs for departmental appeals, applies to pending appeals as well. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions were applicable, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018, which sets a monetary limit of ₹20 lacs for departmental appeals, applies to pending appeals as well. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions were applicable, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018, which sets a monetary limit of ₹20 lacs for departmental appeals, applies to pending appeals as well. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions were applicable, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular which stipulated a monetary limit of ₹ 20 lacs for departmental appeals. Since the tax effect was below this limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular which stipulated a monetary limit of ₹ 20 lacs for departmental appeals. Since the tax effect was below this limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018, which sets a monetary limit of ₹20 lacs for departmental appeals, applies to pending appeals as well. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions were applicable, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals, also applied retrospectively to pending appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular which stipulated a monetary limit of ₹20 lacs for filing departmental appeals. The Revenue could not establish any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018, which sets a monetary limit of ₹20 lacs for departmental appeals, applies to pending appeals as well. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions were applicable, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular allowing withdrawal of appeals with tax effect below the prescribed limit also applies to pending appeals. Since the Revenue could not establish any exceptions, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular which allows withdrawal of pending appeals below the specified tax limit. The Revenue could not establish any exceptions to this circular.