ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2016

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were indeed barred by limitation as they were passed beyond the prescribed time limit. The decision followed a precedent set by a similar case involving the same revenue authority.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee, which was relevant to the controversy. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the documents and providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was unsustainable as the AO failed to record satisfaction. Regarding the excess provision, the Tribunal found that it was a regular practice of provisioning based on best estimates and was reversed in the subsequent year and offered for taxation, thus allowing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08. The amendment to Section 50C regarding assessable value was not retrospective, and circle rates were not specified for the relevant period.

The Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been set aside by a coordinate bench of the ITAT. Therefore, the penalty issue was also set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that in cases involving circular transactions and layering, only the peak unexplained credit should be taxed at the first point to avoid multiple taxation. Since the assessment of the 'kingpin' was not final, an overall view could not be taken.

The Tribunal held that the AO mechanically issued the notice for reassessment based solely on the investigation wing's report without applying his own mind. The reopening was found to be bad in law due to a lack of independent application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance for AY 2004-05, agreeing that the earnest money forfeiture was an allowable business loss but deductible in AY 2005-06. The Department's appeal was dismissed due to monetary limits.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance for AY 2004-05, agreeing that the earnest money forfeiture was an allowable business loss but deductible in AY 2005-06. The Department's appeal was dismissed due to monetary limits.

The Tribunal found the assessee's contention that notices were not received to be reasonable. The Tribunal restored all three appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal directed that shortages/wastages be fixed at 3.35%, aligning with the wastage claimed in a subsequent assessment year. The disallowance of expenses on telephone and vehicle was upheld as reasonable.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance for AY 2004-05, agreeing that the earnest money forfeiture was an allowable business loss but deductible in AY 2005-06. The Department's appeal was dismissed due to monetary limits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in allowing exemption under sections 11 & 12. It also dismissed the grounds related to depreciation, relying on established judicial consensus that depreciation is a necessary deduction on commercial principles for charitable institutions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly disclosed the write-off in its audited financial statements, and the issue of whether the loss was revenue or capital was debatable. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal, citing provisions of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules and various High Court judgments, held that an appeal must be effectively pursued. Since the assessee failed to appear or prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the AO were defective as they did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271 under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. This lack of clarity and non-application of mind by the AO rendered the penalty unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was bad in law because it did not clearly specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated under. Consequently, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found the assessee's contention that notices were not received to be reasonable. The Tribunal restored all three appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal found the assessee's contention that notices were not received to be reasonable. The Tribunal restored all three appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly disclosed the write-off in its audited financial statements, and the issue of whether the loss was revenue or capital was debatable. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the purchases from the supplier parties were not established as genuine. However, since the corresponding sales were not doubted, it was presumed that the assessee made cash purchases from the open market. The matter was restored to the AO to compute the peak of unexplained cash utilized in these cash purchases.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding treasury charges and safety consultancy services, finding no reason to interfere with the relief granted. The Tribunal also directed the TPO to use data available at the time of the study and consider the benefit of downward variation under Section 92C.

The Tribunal held that the purchases from the supplier parties were not established as genuine. However, since the corresponding sales were not doubted, it was presumed that the assessee made cash purchases from the open market. The matter was restored to the AO to compute the peak of unexplained cash utilized in these cash purchases.

The Tribunal found that the TPO used service providers as comparables for the assessee's distribution segment, which had input costs. The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that a different profit level indicator (OP/VAE) should be used due to accounting differences and that the selected comparables were functionally different.

The CIT(A) allowed a significant portion of commission expenses after reviewing additional evidence and AO's inquiries, finding that commission receipts were properly explained and payments were made through bank accounts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's preliminary objection. It held that the appeals were not maintainable as they violated CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 regarding the monetary limit for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that relocation expenses, being reimbursements to employees against bills, are not subject to FBT. For conveyance expenses paid to third parties for employee transport, FBT is also not leviable. The issue of advertising and sales promotion expenses was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal. The circular, with retrospective effect, mandated withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the purchases from the supplier parties were not established as genuine. However, since the corresponding sales were not doubted, it was presumed that the assessee made cash purchases from the open market. The matter was restored to the AO to compute the peak of unexplained cash utilized in these cash purchases.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence, finding it material for determining the independence of EOUs. It also affirmed that the deduction under Section 10B is allowable at source and not after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation from non-eligible units.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's action under Section 263 was not tenable as the issue had already been decided by the CIT(A). Furthermore, since the compensation and interest were subject to a pending SLP before the Supreme Court, they could not be considered income at that stage.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on the deflection yoke division was allowable, following its own previous decisions. It also held that expenses for gifts, presents, and education subsidy to employees and customers were genuine business expenditures and that provision for obsolete inventory was allowable. Furthermore, it ruled that Section 14A was not applicable as the assessee had not earned any exempt income.

The Tribunal found that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were void ab initio due to non-service of notice. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order was also set aside. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the deductions claimed.

The Tribunal held that since the reassessment was initiated based on material found during a search of a third party, Section 153C should have been applied, not Section 147. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment under Section 147 were void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that relocation expenses, being reimbursements to employees against bills, are not subject to FBT. For conveyance expenses paid to third parties for employee transport, FBT is also not leviable. The issue of advertising and sales promotion expenses was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to the Assessing Officer's failure to apply his mind independently to the information received from the investigation wing. The reasons recorded demonstrated a total non-application of mind.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground of appeal challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. It set aside the issue of reassessment validity to the first appellate authority for adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the Assessing Officer could not doubt the genuineness of a contract simply by making a general statement. The terms of the agreement were binding, and the CIT(A) had rightly considered all aspects.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on the deflection yoke division was allowable, following its own previous decisions. It also held that expenses for gifts, presents, and education subsidy to employees and customers were genuine business expenditures and that provision for obsolete inventory was allowable. Furthermore, it ruled that Section 14A was not applicable as the assessee had not earned any exempt income.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh investigation. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had stopped further investigation due to the assessee's surrender and directed a proper inquiry.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established rules and precedents, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the receipts were reimbursements and not income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision with identical facts.

The Tribunal, following established rules and precedents, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as un-admitted.

The Tribunal, following established rules and precedents, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served as the reasons were not communicated to the assessee within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that if no exempt income is earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, citing the Supreme Court's decision in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. vs CIT, which allows for the admission of new legal grounds if they go to the root of the matter and relevant facts are on record. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication of these grounds.