ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2015

The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A are invalid in the absence of seized incriminating material. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged its onus by filing an affidavit of non-service, and the Revenue failed to prove proper and valid service of notice under Section 143(2) within the statutory period. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence and that a mere change in profit-sharing ratio does not constitute a change in the constitution of the firm for the purpose of setting off losses. However, certain additions related to interest and bank charges were remanded for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not providing points for determination and reasons for the decision. The impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A are invalid in the absence of seized incriminating material. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A can only be based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. It found that the issue of TDS on salaries of non-residents deputed to India was a debatable and nascent issue, and the assessee had genuine and bonafide reasons for non-compliance initially.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is duty-bound to allow the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation as per law. The period of limitation for rectification under Section 154 does not apply to proceedings consequent upon orders of appellate authorities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's invocation of Section 263 was bad in law for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05, finding no prejudice to revenue. For AY 2002-03, it found a lack of inquiry by the AO, deeming the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the issue of transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP expenses, particularly the classification of distributor expenses, needed to be examined afresh by the TPO. The TPO was directed to verify the assessee's claims with supporting documents and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the AO had not applied his mind to the materials on record before issuing the notice. The Tribunal followed precedents from the Delhi High Court on the requirement of application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the AO had not applied his mind to the materials on record before issuing the notice. The Tribunal followed precedents from the Delhi High Court on the requirement of application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to the lack of representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the income in question belonged to the Society, a finding concurrently held by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). As the same income cannot be taxed in the hands of two different assessees, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer of the searched party had not recorded the mandatory satisfaction note, which is a prerequisite for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C. Following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, all assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer of the searched party had not recorded the mandatory satisfaction note, which is a prerequisite for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C. Following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, all assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer of the searched party had not recorded the mandatory satisfaction note, which is a prerequisite for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C. Following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, all assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based solely on information from the investigation wing without independent application of mind. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was considered bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based solely on information from the investigation wing without independent application of mind. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was considered bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT was not justified in rejecting the application. It was established that the trust had commenced activities by acquiring land, and importantly, non-commencement of activities at the stage of registration is not a valid ground for refusal.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer of the searched party had not recorded the mandatory satisfaction note, which is a prerequisite for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C. Following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, all assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that assessments made under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions made were deleted. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not err in accepting additional evidence as the AO was given an opportunity to comment, and that the deletion of additions was justified given the progressive results and lack of defects found in the produced books of accounts.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. The assessee has the option to move the Tribunal to recall the order by providing valid reasons for non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative before the revenue authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that assessments made under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions made were deleted. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that assessments made under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions made were deleted. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of contract payment to NBHC was wrongly applied as it was a reimbursement of expenses and not a contractual payment by the assessee. The issue regarding rent paid to warehousing corporations was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that due to the subsequent order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission and the Assessing Officer giving effect to it, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection had become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer of the searched party had not recorded the mandatory satisfaction note, which is a prerequisite for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C. Following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, all assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, noting no exempt income was earned and the AO failed to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the assessee's claims. Regarding unverifiable purchases, the Tribunal directed the AO to decide the issue based on documentary evidence already filed.

The Tribunal held that the income in question belonged to the Society, a finding concurrently held by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). As the same income cannot be taxed in the hands of two different assessees, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer of the searched party had not recorded the mandatory satisfaction note, which is a prerequisite for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C. Following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, all assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal noted a contradiction in the revenue authorities' findings regarding the use of the godown. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue afresh, considering all documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal, without commenting on the merits, directed the AO to re-examine the issues in dispute. This was based on the principle of consistency, noting that the AO had allowed similar relief in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued beyond 4 years without the required approval from the Commissioner or Chief Commissioner. Therefore, the assessment order was rightly quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued beyond 4 years without the required approval from the Commissioner or Chief Commissioner. Therefore, the assessment order was rightly quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals, as per CBDT Instruction No. 5/2014 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also noted that such instructions are applicable to pending cases.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions of Rs. 55,000/- (unsubstantiated cash from certain individuals), Rs. 63,000/- (cash deposit from family members without evidence), and Rs. 2,35,000/- (cash received over documented property sale price, not proven by the assessee).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify it, as per the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed the appeal as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. The CBDT instructions are binding on income-tax authorities.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable because the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars but levied it for concealment of income. This discrepancy violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to defend against the specific charge.

The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal relied on Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and CBDT instructions, as well as High Court decisions.