ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2015

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of disallowance of Rs. 1,12,32,970/- on account of specific administrative cost back to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's claim that it was project-related and not general administrative cost. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of deletion of Rs. 60,82,961/- on account of technical associates fees paid for services prior to PE existence back to the AO. Furthermore, the Tribunal remitted the issue of deletion of Rs. 66,32,170/- on account of technical associates fee paid for services rendered abroad back to the AO for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence and that the additions made by the AO on account of processing fees, deemed dividend, and unsecured loans were not sustainable. The assessee had discharged its burden of proof regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans.

The Tribunal, following its decision in the preceding assessment year, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the AO for deciding the issue of depreciation on capital subsidy in conformity with the previous year's directions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain an addition of Rs. 40,17,517/- based on the assessee's own register, finding no cogent material to dispute it. The Tribunal also confirmed the reduction of an addition related to bank deposits to Rs. 2,82,838/-, as offered by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were indeed barred by limitation as they were framed beyond the prescribed time limit following the search and seizure operations. Consequently, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain an addition of Rs. 40,17,517/- based on the assessee's own register, finding no cogent material to dispute it. The Tribunal also confirmed the reduction of an addition related to bank deposits to Rs. 2,82,838/-, as offered by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders were proved by documentary evidence, and the Revenue had not brought any material to suggest the loan transaction was not genuine. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that merely establishing the identity of the investor is not sufficient; creditworthiness and genuineness must also be proven. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were indeed barred by limitation as they were framed beyond the prescribed time limit following the search and seizure operations. Consequently, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that unexplained expenses cannot be added separately if they are less than the sustained undisclosed income, as they are presumed to be met from such income. Additions on account of foreign travel were deleted as they were claimed as part of total travelling expenses.

The Tribunal held that the pre-recording of cash withdrawals was an inadvertent error as the cash balance never fell below the withdrawn amount. Regarding the unsecured loan, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the brought forward balance but sustained the addition of Rs. 1 lac as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the fresh loan.

The Tribunal held that the pre-recording of cash withdrawals was an inadvertent error as the cash balance never fell below the withdrawn amount. Regarding the unsecured loan, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the brought forward balance but sustained the addition of Rs. 1 lac as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the fresh loan.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, following a Delhi High Court judgment in the assessee's own case for earlier years which held that the business was set up and had commenced.

The Tribunal noted that the facts of this case were identical to that of the assessee's son, whose appeal was previously restored to the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and sent the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that no separate addition can be made for unexplained expenses if the undisclosed income already taxed is sufficient to cover such expenses. Additions on account of unexplained expenditure and investment were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were indeed barred by limitation as they were framed beyond the prescribed time limit following the search and seizure operations. Consequently, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly considered the facts, particularly the assessee's contention of a credit balance in his account. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were indeed barred by limitation as they were framed beyond the prescribed time limit following the search and seizure operations. Consequently, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were indeed barred by limitation as they were framed beyond the prescribed time limit following the search and seizure operations. Consequently, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were indeed barred by limitation as they were framed beyond the prescribed time limit following the search and seizure operations. Consequently, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that energy meters are eligible for 80% depreciation, contrary to the lower authorities' view of 25%. Regarding service line deposits, the Tribunal ruled they are capital in nature but should be considered for reducing the total income over three years as per the company's policy.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable as there was no evidence of income concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, despite disallowances for lack of bills. However, a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 271(1)(b) for failure to comply with statutory requirements was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable as there was no evidence of income concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, despite disallowances for lack of bills. However, a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 271(1)(b) for failure to comply with statutory requirements was confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reopening under Section 147 was ab-initio void. The Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the evidence, and the Department failed to prove the existence of the credit entry.