ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2017

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) should have considered the remand report and additional evidence. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal held that payments of commission or brokerage in respect of transactions in securities are not covered by Section 194H, thus no TDS was required. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding Section 14A disallowance, upholding the CIT(A)'s direction to recompute as per High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that payments of commission or brokerage in respect of transactions in securities are not covered by Section 194H, thus no TDS was required. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding Section 14A disallowance, upholding the CIT(A)'s direction to recompute as per High Court decisions.

The Tribunal decided to remand several issues back to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh examination. Some grounds of appeal were dismissed, while others were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that directions were issued by the Joint Commissioner (JCIT) under Section 144A without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, which is a mandatory requirement. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that without valid registration under Section 12A, the assessee is not eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. Therefore, the issues were decided against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition of unexplained jewellery should be deleted, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain. The court had accepted the CBDT circular limits for jewellery as a reasonable explanation for its source, considering customary gifting practices in Hindu families.

The Tribunal followed its previous orders for identical issues in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. It held that rental income should be treated as income from house property and allowed a portion of the expenses claimed for earning interest income.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide proof of service of the final hearing notice to the assessee. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions, especially considering the additional evidence provided. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.