ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2016

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO is to decide the issue afresh after considering the additional evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to him. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the coordinate bench's order on similar facts and pass a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal took on record the letter dated 22nd August 2016, submitted by the assessee's authorized representative, which indicated the assessee's decision to withdraw the appeal. The letter stated that the withdrawal was sought due to the small quantum of tax involved. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any objection to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal found no impediment to allowing the withdrawal. In light of the assessee's explicit request and the absence of any opposition from the revenue, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original appeal, as it was withdrawn before any substantive adjudication.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- are not maintainable. The circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable to the present case. The appeal was dismissed in light of this circular.

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeals due to repeated non-representation. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall if a reasonable cause for non-representation could be shown.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds related to penalty proceedings as premature. For the addition of unconfirmed sundry creditors, the Tribunal directed verification by the AO regarding the assessee's claim of subsequent write-off and offering to tax.

The Tribunal found that the CIT's order mentioned issuing letters but not their service date. To ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter to the CIT's file for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that disallowances for personal use of vehicle and telephone expenses were reasonable due to lack of logbooks. However, it allowed the deduction for ESI and PF contributions paid before the due date of filing the return, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for purchases, finding that the AO had not properly confronted the assessee with the undelivered summons and had ignored other evidence. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 1,62,500/-, noting the AO's failure to rebut the assessee's computation.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account and the estimation of gross profit were not justified, directing the AO to re-examine the profit based on book results. The addition under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted, and Fringe Benefit Tax was not to be charged on scooter depreciation.

The Tribunal found that the CIT's order mentioned issuing letters but not their service date. To ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter to the CIT's file for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous as the assessee had provided explanations and proof of taxes paid in the contracting states. The Tribunal also noted that the DTAA allows income from immovable property to be taxed in the state where it is situated.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to present fresh evidence and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory time limit and that Section 292BB did not apply as the assessee had raised objections. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of appearance and presumed a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received as reimbursement of actual expenses are includible in the gross receipts under Section 44BB, following the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court.

The Tribunal held that excess application of income in earlier years for charitable purposes should be regarded as application of income of the trust for charitable purposes in subsequent years. Therefore, the claim for carry forward of losses was allowed.

The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to consistent non-representation and failure to remove defects. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeals due to non-appearance and failure to cure defects. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall if a reasonable cause for non-representation could be shown.

The Tribunal held that since the addition in respect of which the penalty was levied had been set aside by the ITAT in a separate quantum appeal, the penalty could not be sustained. The Assessing Officer was given liberty to reinitiate penalty proceedings if fresh assessment warranted it.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine without following the statutory mandate. Considering the quantum appeal was set aside, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalty were either deleted or remanded by the ITAT in the quantum appeal, the penalty proceedings were infructuous. Therefore, the penalty order sustained by the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that provisions for expenses crystallized during the year are allowable even if paid later. However, the disallowance of miscellaneous expenses due to lack of evidence was also confirmed.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to issue notices to both the assessee's business address and the advocate's address, ensuring a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the principle of consistency should be followed, as the revenue had consistently treated similar rental income as business income in previous assessment years. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments that support treating rental income as business income when it is the primary activity of the company.