ITAT Raipur Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Assessees' Cross Objections were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular raising the monetary limit for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular raising the monetary limit for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Following High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case, considering the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to appear without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Assessees' Cross Objections were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular raising the monetary limit for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors, as required by Section 68. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was uncalled for.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circular. The assessee did not press its grounds of appeal due to smallness of the amount.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the remaining 9-day delay and decide the appeal on its merits. The CIT(A) was instructed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

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 under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT circular regarding monetary limits. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of income from transport commission and the addition for low household withdrawal, finding no material to controvert the findings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to appear and not seek adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to the preceding assessment year, where the Tribunal had upheld the deletion of the addition. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition was confirmed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circular. The assessee did not press its grounds of appeal due to smallness of the amount.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT circular regarding monetary limits. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of income from transport commission and the addition for low household withdrawal, finding no material to controvert the findings.