ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2017

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not bifurcate expenses or call for further information. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification of facts.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of Section 54B cannot be allowed when the new agricultural land is purchased in the name of the wife, following a jurisdictional High Court precedent.

The Tribunal noted that a common order had already been passed on a similar issue raised in the assessee's cross-objection, which was dismissed. Therefore, the current appeal on the same issue was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the AO's figure for cash withdrawals was disputed by the assessee and required verification. The matter was restored to the AO for re-computation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have disposed of the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee. The impugned order was set aside to allow the assessee a due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that software time-based license expenses, rented for less than a year, are revenue in nature. It also directed the AO to re-examine training expenses and depreciation on goodwill after providing an opportunity for a hearing.

The Tribunal, following established precedents, held that an appeal must be actively pursued. Since the assessee failed to appear or prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed.