ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2016

The Tribunal held that additions related to alleged over and above cash payments for a property sale were unsustainable as similar additions were deleted in the payer's case. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's ground regarding the treatment of fixed deposit interest and upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to correctly reduce preceding year's business income.

The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limini.

The Tribunal held that additions related to alleged over and above cash payments for a property sale were unsustainable as similar additions were deleted in the payer's case. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's ground regarding the treatment of fixed deposit interest and upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to correctly reduce preceding year's business income.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party recorded behind the assessee's back, without an opportunity for cross-examination and lacking corroborative evidence, cannot be used against the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentation, and the AO did not make sufficient efforts to verify the share applicants.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Tribunal clarified that this dismissal would not create a precedent for future appeals with a higher tax effect.

The Tribunal restored the issue of royalty payment to the AO for fresh assessment. For Section 14A, the Tribunal also restored the matter to the AO for de novo consideration, following earlier precedents. The ground regarding inter-company charges was decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that a housing project can comprise both eligible and ineligible units, and deduction is available for eligible units even if the entire project received a single approval. It also found that separate approvals for each eligible unit or project are not a prerequisite for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10).

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed allowed partners to enhance or reduce salary by mutual consent, subject to Section 40(b) limits. Therefore, the disallowance of salary paid to partners was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the selection of comparables by the TPO and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) was erroneous. It followed its own previous decision for the Assessment Year 2010-11 and excluded certain companies from the list of comparables.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party recorded behind the assessee's back, without an opportunity for cross-examination and lacking corroborative evidence, cannot be used against the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentation, and the AO did not make sufficient efforts to verify the share applicants.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party recorded behind the assessee's back, without an opportunity for cross-examination and lacking corroborative evidence, cannot be used against the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentation, and the AO did not make sufficient efforts to verify the share applicants.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue ought not to have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The circulars are binding on income tax authorities and apply retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below Rs. 10,00,000.

The Tribunal held that demurrage and wharfage charges are compensatory in nature and not penalties. Following its own prior decisions and High Court judgments, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the claimed expenses and that the authorities below had failed to consider them. The disallowances and additions were set aside.

The Tribunal restored the issue of royalty expenses to the file of the AO. This was done to allow the AO to examine the reasonableness of the expenditure, the terms of the agreement, and the applicability of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, as similar issues in prior years were remanded.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A), following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal noted that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not automatic and requires a deliberate act of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect involved was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs prescribed by the CBDT. The dismissal was made without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party recorded behind the assessee's back, without an opportunity for cross-examination and lacking corroborative evidence, cannot be used against the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentation, and the AO did not make sufficient efforts to verify the share applicants.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty on interest on NSCs, citing a similar deletion in the assessee's own case for an earlier year. For the other two additions, the Tribunal noted that these were deleted in quantum proceedings, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party recorded behind the assessee's back, without an opportunity for cross-examination and lacking corroborative evidence, cannot be used against the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentation, and the AO did not make sufficient efforts to verify the share applicants.

The Tribunal held that the prior period expense was allowable as the bill was received after the close of the accounting year, and the liability crystallized in the current year. Similarly, the provision for stock shortage and obsolescence was allowed as it was a bona fide attempt to ascertain correct business profits based on expert recommendations.

The Tribunal held that advances from fellow subsidiaries cannot be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company because the assessee is not a shareholder in any of the advancing companies. The provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are intended to tax dividends in the hands of shareholders, not the recipient concern.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were initiated without any fresh material and amounted to a change of opinion on issues already considered during the original assessment. Consequently, the penalty levied on the additions made in the void reassessment also could not survive.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed without proving concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found no evidence of such in this case, as the cash flow statement was accepted for other years.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party recorded behind the assessee's back, without an opportunity for cross-examination and lacking corroborative evidence, cannot be used against the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentation, and the AO did not make sufficient efforts to verify the share applicants.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party recorded behind the assessee's back, without an opportunity for cross-examination and lacking corroborative evidence, cannot be used against the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentation, and the AO did not make sufficient efforts to verify the share applicants.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party recorded behind the assessee's back, without an opportunity for cross-examination and lacking corroborative evidence, cannot be used against the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentation, and the AO did not make sufficient efforts to verify the share applicants.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party recorded behind the assessee's back, without an opportunity for cross-examination and lacking corroborative evidence, cannot be used against the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentation, and the AO did not make sufficient efforts to verify the share applicants.

The Tribunal held that demurrage and wharfage charges are compensatory in nature and not penalties. Following its own prior decisions and High Court judgments, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were initiated without any fresh material and amounted to a change of opinion on issues already considered during the original assessment. Consequently, the penalty levied on the additions made in the void reassessment also could not survive.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party recorded behind the assessee's back, without an opportunity for cross-examination and lacking corroborative evidence, cannot be used against the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentation, and the AO did not make sufficient efforts to verify the share applicants.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party recorded behind the assessee's back, without an opportunity for cross-examination and lacking corroborative evidence, cannot be used against the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentation, and the AO did not make sufficient efforts to verify the share applicants.

The Tribunal held that a housing project can comprise both eligible and ineligible units, and deduction is available for eligible units even if the entire project received a single approval. It also found that separate approvals for each eligible unit or project are not a prerequisite for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10).

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party recorded behind the assessee's back, without an opportunity for cross-examination and lacking corroborative evidence, cannot be used against the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentation, and the AO did not make sufficient efforts to verify the share applicants.

The Tribunal held that the statement of a third party recorded behind the assessee's back, without an opportunity for cross-examination and lacking corroborative evidence, cannot be used against the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentation, and the AO did not make sufficient efforts to verify the share applicants.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to pay interest under Section 234B, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in GE Packaged Power Inc. The payer has the primary obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to confront the statement of Shri S.K. Jain or the material seized from him, which was used to make the addition. Without this evidence, the AO lacked material to support the addition.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of hearing at both the assessment and appellate stages. Consequently, the case was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application and dismissed the appeal in limini. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, which mandate withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with low tax effect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that merely earning higher profits does not justify reducing a deduction claim. Previous ITAT orders and a High Court decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years were followed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect involved was below the Rs. 10 lakhs limit specified by the CBDT circular. The dismissal was not to be considered a precedent for subsequent years with a higher tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted an inquiry and considered the assessee's claim, even making a partial disallowance. The CIT's order under Section 263 was deemed illegal as it was based on a difference of opinion rather than a finding that the AO's view was unsustainable in law.