ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2016

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and gathered sufficient evidence before passing the assessment order. The CIT(E) wrongly invoked Section 263 based on suspicion and without conclusive findings, thus the revisional order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B is not leviable when no books of account are maintained, as the requirement of audit arises only when books are maintained. It also held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained if it's solely based on an estimated addition to income.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B is not leviable when no books of account are maintained, as the requirement of audit arises only when books are maintained. It also held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained if it's solely based on an estimated addition to income.

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

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ambiguous and lacking clear reasoning. Therefore, the case was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on provision for incomplete work, finding it was a brought forward provision. It also confirmed the deletion of unexplained investment, as the CIT(A) correctly distinguished fair market value from cost. The reduction in disallowance of expenses was also deemed justified.

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment request and dismissed the appeal in limine due to the repeated adjournments and the uncured defect. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order by curing the defects.

The Tribunal observed that the defect in the appeal fee deposit was not cured by the assessee. In the absence of any explanation or submission, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The CIT(A) deleted both additions, finding that the assessee provided sufficient evidence for loan sources and that the AO's estimation of commission income was not justified. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of procurement, fabrication, and installation of retail visual identity components amounted to manufacturing. It also ruled that filing a belated return under Section 139(4) does not disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 80IC, considering it an incentive provision.

The Tribunal held that if the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3)/147 were quashed, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Department was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulated that appeals would not be filed if the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below on all grounds and restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the books of account, allow opportunity for hearing regarding the head of income for share sale profits, and allow set-off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation if available.

The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions related to unsecured loans, finding that the AO had misinterpreted the assessee's statement of affairs. Regarding accommodation entries, the Tribunal noted the assessee's retraction of the statement and lack of corroborative evidence found during the assessee's survey.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, finding that they went to the root of the controversy and were legal in nature. The Tribunal restored the main grounds and related issues concerning Section 80HHC and Section 115JB to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue of opening cash balance to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the rental income as income from house property and dismissed the appeal against the addition for the gift, finding the donor's creditworthiness not established.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to condone the delay, finding sufficient cause. It also affirmed the quashing of reassessment proceedings due to lack of proper authorization for reopening the assessment after the stipulated period.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should be dismissed as the tax effect was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for filing appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is linked to the sum chargeable to tax under Section 195. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the conditions of CBDT Circular No. 3/2015 were met, which would exempt the assessee from TDS if M/s IRL had no taxable income in the year under consideration. Interest under Section 234B was also to be re-evaluated.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeals were dismissed on this technical ground.

The Tribunal held that the AO assumed jurisdiction mechanically without applying his mind or verifying the information received. The evidence provided by the assessee to establish the genuineness of the gift was not properly considered. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent order were quashed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, finding that they went to the root of the controversy and were legal in nature. The Tribunal restored the grounds related to Section 80HHC and Section 115JB to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. This was because the addition on which the penalty was based had already been deleted by the Tribunal, and the assessee had disclosed all facts to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 10 lac, is binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was admittedly below this limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 10(8) as the remuneration was indirectly received from the US Government for duties performed under an agreement between the Governments of India and USA. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order based on the agreement and previous decisions in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect did not exceed the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person is a mandatory pre-condition for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Since no such satisfaction note was produced, the proceedings under Section 153C were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT at Rs. 10 lac, is binding on the Revenue. As the tax effect was admittedly below this limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT at Rs. 10 lac, is binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was admittedly below this limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that de-mat charges recovered from clients cannot be disallowed as expenditure. However, a small disallowance of Rs. 19,024/- was sustained based on the assessee's concession, with the understanding it would not set a precedent.

The Tribunal held that TDS is not required on payments to non-residents if the income is not chargeable to tax in India, following established High Court and Supreme Court precedents. It also held that ESI contributions paid before the due date of filing the return are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars of income as he voluntarily offered a fair market value which was accepted by the AO. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in disallowing expenditure under Section 14A without proper evidence or analysis. The disallowance was made mechanically by applying Rule 8D without establishing a nexus between expenditure and exempt income.

The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions related to unsecured loans, finding that the AO had misinterpreted the assessee's statement of affairs. Regarding accommodation entries, the Tribunal noted the assessee's retraction of the statement and lack of corroborative evidence found during the assessee's survey.

The Tribunal held that the sanction for issuing notices under Section 148 was not granted with proper application of mind, as it merely involved a signature without detailed consideration. For AY 2002-03, no sanction was found. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the sanction for issuing notices under Section 148 was not granted with proper application of mind, as it merely involved a signature without detailed consideration. For AY 2002-03, no sanction was found. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the conversion of partnership firms into a company, where the business is taken over as a going concern with all assets and liabilities and the partners receive shares equivalent to their capital, does not constitute a reconstruction of the business. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 80-IB.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made without any incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's case. The husband's statement admitting bogus gifts was not applicable to the assessee, and the AO had exceeded jurisdiction by initiating reassessment proceedings instead of completing assessment based on seized material.

The Tribunal held that the concept of deferred revenue expenditure is not recognized under the Income-Tax Act. Revenue expenditure, if allowable under Section 37(1), should be allowed in full in the year it is incurred.

The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions related to unsecured loans, finding that the AO had misinterpreted the assessee's statement of affairs. Regarding accommodation entries, the Tribunal noted the assessee's retraction of the statement and lack of corroborative evidence found during the assessee's survey.

The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions related to unsecured loans, finding that the AO had misinterpreted the assessee's statement of affairs. Regarding accommodation entries, the Tribunal noted the assessee's retraction of the statement and lack of corroborative evidence found during the assessee's survey.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence concerning the source of funds from the two entities, noting that the assessee had a reasonable belief that proving the 'source of source' was not mandatory. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.