ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2017

The Tribunal found that while the issue of validity of additions under Section 153A was raised, it was not raised before the lower authorities. Regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal, considering the accepted net profit rate in a subsequent year, decided to estimate a net profit rate for the disputed purchases.

The Tribunal found that while the issue of validity of additions under Section 153A was raised, it was not raised before the lower authorities. Regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal, considering the accepted net profit rate in a subsequent year, decided to estimate a net profit rate for the disputed purchases.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on commodity trading losses and notional additions, but set aside issues related to Section 80IC deductions to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision in favor of the assessee regarding the denial of deduction under Section 10AA. The Tribunal held that services rendered to an associated enterprise, even on a cost-plus basis, qualify for the deduction if other conditions are met.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed these appeals.

The Tribunal held that since the additions/disallowances on which the penalty was levied no longer existed, the penalty was not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in K.C. Builders & Others Vs ACIT.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on estimation and not on concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following precedent, it was found that estimated additions do not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action of setting aside the assessment order was done in haste and without proper notice or opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the PCIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application transactions. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction regarding the addition on gross receipts.