ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal decided 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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.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 held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal decided that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal decided that the appeals were not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, citing the CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals.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

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed. This was based on the CBDT circular which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the revised monetary limit and no exceptions from the circular were cited. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were covered by the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals. Since no exceptions were applicable, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to raise the legal issue regarding the validity of the penalty notice. This was done in conjunction with the restoration of the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The cross objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed as they were of academic interest after the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 powers to substitute his judgment for the AO's when the AO has applied his mind and made enquiries. The revisionary order was quashed as the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of profit on equity share sale back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination considering the Finance Act, 2010 amendment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 14A and club expenses, following its own prior decisions.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It deleted the disallowance of interest on ICD given to SRPPL but upheld the disallowance of proportionate interest relating to a loss on ICD given to Vimpson Investment Pvt Ltd. The write-back of debenture loan was confirmed as taxable income, and prior period expenses were not pressed. The disallowance of expenditure as capital was partly allowed, allowing depreciation on UPS and battery at the same rate as computers.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all appeals was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, and the issues did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 for pursuing appeals. The Revenue could not demonstrate that the issues fell under any exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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 granted liberty to seek recall if the issue fell under exceptions.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. As no exceptions were cited, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction that the assessee's suo motu disallowance is incorrect before invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. and its own precedent, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, agreeing that the assessee had substantial compliance and reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the peculiar nature of the diamond trading business. The Tribunal noted that the TPO could have explored alternative methods for benchmarking.

The Tribunal held that the non-disposal of objections by the AO before framing the assessment is a serious and incurable defect that goes to the root of the jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs for appeals before the ITAT. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee is in the business of shares and stock broking, the advance to the director for share purchase has a direct nexus with the business. Therefore, the interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(iii).