ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2016

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the facts and arguments regarding the nature of the land and the development expenses. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and considering fresh evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the AO had not applied his mind to the information received and had merely forwarded it without recording independent reasons. The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case on a similar issue.

The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision. This was to allow the AO to consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of management service fees to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh in light of the Delhi High Court's judgment. It also directed that expenses excluded from export turnover should also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A deduction.

The Tribunal noted that the penalty had been deleted by the CIT(A) following a rectification application. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee had become infructuous.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be not in accordance with law as the grounds raised by the assessee were not decided, and it was unclear what evidence was treated as fresh. The issue was restored to the AO for a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with statutory provisions as it failed to provide a speaking order and proper opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the temporary advance given to the assessee was not a gratuitous loan but was provided in return for the business advantage conferred upon the company by the assessee's personal guarantee. Therefore, it did not fall under the definition of deemed dividend.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the non-compliance due to the centralization of work, office relocation, and delays in receiving files after MCD bifurcation. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 272A(2)(k) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal, as evidenced by their non-appearance and lack of communication. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 28,00,000 as the commission income was already taxed in the hands of the Director. However, the addition of Rs. 1,07,000 and the disallowance of expenses of Rs. 3,34,560 were confirmed.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be condemned unheard and set aside the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be provided with a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be not interested in prosecuting the appeal, citing previous adjournments. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the tax authorities could not outrightly dismiss the retraction without an independent evaluation of the assessee's mental capabilities. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, potentially requiring expert medical opinion.

The tribunal restored the issue of partner's salary disallowance to the AO for fresh adjudication, as it was unclear if cash payments were withdrawals. The disallowance on other expenses was restricted to Rs. 25,000.

The Tribunal, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights, and following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, decided to dismiss the appeal. The dismissal was due to the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeal.

The Tribunal was satisfied with the assessee's reasons for absence before the CIT(A). Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision after providing a proper hearing opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by not considering the repeated opportunities given to the assessee to produce the directors of the share applicant companies. The genuineness of the transactions could not be established without addressing the business activities of these companies and the reasons for their investment.

The Tribunal disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging that the assessee's appeal had become infructuous. This was due to the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment demand by the lower appellate authority.