ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2016

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on payments made to GNIDA, citing previous judgments. For the bus hire charges, the Tribunal found that the AO had applied the wrong provision of law and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 144 were not properly served on the assessee. The additions made by the AO were therefore vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee, which is a mandatory requirement. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 5/2012 was not applicable for the assessment year 2011-12 as it was issued later. It also noted that MCI Regulations primarily apply to medical practitioners, not pharmaceutical companies. The disallowance of Rs. 13,14,548/- was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's revisionary power under Section 263 was partly justified. Certain issues, like the interest from RPS Infrastructure Ltd. and the validity of the revised return, were not properly dealt with by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis, especially when there is no evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was deleted as the additions were based on estimation.

The Tribunal restored the issue of gifts from the grandmother to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision due to lack of proper evidence and opportunity. The addition on account of commission income was upheld as reasonable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO regarding evaluation charges, royalty, bad debts, and repair/maintenance expenses. However, the issue of disallowance for late deposit of TDS was remanded to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not consider a letter from M/s Provogue regarding reimbursement of expenses and also did not adequately examine the oral agreement for enhanced partner remuneration. Therefore, both issues were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of account but found that the estimation of profit at 10% based on Section 44BBB was not applicable. The issue regarding addition under Section 40(a) was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which prescribes a pecuniary limit of Rs. 10 lacs for appeals to the ITAT. This circular has statutory force under Section 268A of the IT Act.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the AO failed to apply his independent mind and merely acted upon the information received from the Investigation Wing. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the amounts mentioned by the AO.

The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to examine the newly submitted documents regarding the merger and to decide the appeal in light of the cited Tribunal judgment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, following precedent and Supreme Court guidance on substantial justice over technicalities. It found the CIT's order under Section 263 to be unsustainable as the AO's assessment was not erroneous.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during search. Since no such material was found regarding the creditors, the Assessing Officer's action was in accordance with law, and the CIT's revisionary powers were not satisfied.

The Tribunal considered the request for withdrawal and the lack of objection from the revenue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during search. Since no such material was found regarding the creditors, the Assessing Officer's action was in accordance with law, and the CIT's revisionary powers under Section 263 were not satisfied.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the Department itself submitted it should not be pressed in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 regarding monetary limits for appeals. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a) for non-deduction of TDS on salaries was not applicable in the relevant assessment year. For other expenses and repair & maintenance, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the chart detailing the purchase returns was not available to the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the assessee's claim that the returns were already accounted for.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the hands of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda were deleted, the protective additions made in the hands of the assessees, which were based on the same seized documents and were considered as application of income, also needed to be deleted. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the hands of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda were deleted, the protective additions made in the hands of the assessees, which were based on the same seized documents and were considered as application of income, also needed to be deleted. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the seized document was an unsigned, undated loose paper without corroborating evidence and thus, the addition of Rs. 96 lacs could not be sustained. Similarly, the addition for unexplained jewellery was also deleted.

The Tribunal, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights, dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution. The assessee was informed of their liberty to request setting aside the order by moving an application explaining their non-appearance.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and directed the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing details of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transaction through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the hands of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda were deleted, the protective additions made in the hands of the assessees, which were based on the same seized documents and were considered as application of income, also needed to be deleted. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the seized document was an unsigned, undated loose paper without corroborating evidence and thus, the addition of Rs. 96 lacs could not be sustained. Similarly, the addition for unexplained jewellery was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that loose papers without corroborating evidence or nexus to the assessee are 'dumb documents' and cannot form the basis for additions. The presumption under Section 292C is rebuttable and was successfully rebutted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the hands of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda were deleted, the protective additions made in the hands of the assessees, which were based on the same seized documents and were considered as application of income, also needed to be deleted. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.