ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2016

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden under Section 68 by submitting confirmations, IT returns, bank statements, and affidavits of all 17 parties. Since the assessee expressed inability to produce the directors, the AO issued notices under Section 133(6), which were complied with by the creditors, thus negating the need for the assessee to produce them. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision that merely because cash was deposited in the bank accounts of other parties/shareholders prior to issuing cheques to the assessee company, it could not be concluded that they were not creditworthy. The creditworthiness is not solely determined by cash deposits or nominal income shown in returns; it is also governed by investments and balance sheet size. The assessee had provided a detailed chart showing fund availability with these companies, and the AO had not produced evidence that the invested amounts were not owned by these companies or belonged to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that in the absence of evidence suggesting the transactions were not genuine, the AO could not treat the invested amount as the assessee's income under Section 68. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was bad in law and against the principles of natural justice as it did not address the issues on merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for de novo decision. The CIT(A) was directed to follow procedural requirements, issue notice, and pass a speaking order after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal with retrospective effect was applicable. As the tax effect in this appeal was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeals due to repeated non-appearance. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issue of cost of acquisition and the applicability of Section 50C by passing a speaking order after considering fresh evidence if necessary.

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to repeated adjournments and failure to cure defects. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeals due to repeated non-appearance. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeals due to repeated non-appearance. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to repeated non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the source of investment and agricultural income. The Revenue failed to present contrary facts or evidence to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal found that the tax authorities had not adequately addressed the factual submissions of the assessee regarding the nature of receipts and the club's past history. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment petition due to the lack of proper details and the assessee's apparent lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only to amounts payable at the end of the year, not to amounts already paid. Therefore, the disallowances made for payments already made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not sustainable in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, especially when the assessment for the year was already completed. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.

The Tribunal held that the loss from export of trading goods must be adjusted against export incentives when calculating the deduction under Section 80HHC. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue authorities relied solely on accounting entries without examining the assessee's explanation that the amount was a gift and the recording as a loan was an error by the accountant. The plea was not examined on its merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued without jurisdiction. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings were deemed invalid.