ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2017

The Tribunal held that the assessee's intention was to make investments, not to trade shares, and thus the gains should be treated as capital gains. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had consistently shown capital gains in the past, which were accepted by the department.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied were deleted by the ITAT, the penalty cannot be sustained. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in cancelling the penalty.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned order as required by Section 250(6) and also violated principles of natural justice by not providing proper notice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned order as required by Section 250(6) and also violated principles of natural justice by not providing proper notice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned order as required by Section 250(6) and also violated principles of natural justice by not providing proper notice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Rohini property was incomplete and not habitable, thus not liable for rental income. For the remaining two properties, one is to be considered self-occupied at the assessee's option, and the other's annual letting value is to be computed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. It found that the difference was primarily due to differential interest rates charged by the bank and not a waiver of the loan principal. The assessee had not claimed this difference as expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without any new material. The AO's belief was based on a review of old records, constituting a change of opinion, thus rendering the reopening invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for the assessee's failure to comply with statutory notices and provide necessary information. The non-cooperation was found to hinder crucial investigations into undisclosed foreign bank accounts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus regarding the gift and the department failed to provide cogent evidence to disprove it. It also found that mould repair expenses were revenue in nature and not capital expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for the assessee's failure to comply with statutory notices and provide necessary information. The non-cooperation was found to hinder crucial investigations into undisclosed foreign bank accounts.

The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for the assessee's failure to comply with statutory notices and provide necessary information. The non-cooperation was found to hinder crucial investigations into undisclosed foreign bank accounts.

The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for the assessee's failure to comply with statutory notices and provide necessary information. The non-cooperation was found to hinder crucial investigations into undisclosed foreign bank accounts.

The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for the assessee's failure to comply with statutory notices and provide necessary information. The non-cooperation was found to hinder crucial investigations into undisclosed foreign bank accounts.

The Tribunal held that Section 17(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act applies to employee directors, not non-employee directors. It also noted that evidence indicated the foreign trips were for business purposes and borne by the company, making the additions unjustified.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made when no dividend income is received, especially when investments are strategic. The Tribunal also noted that the depreciation issue was covered by earlier orders confirmed by the High Court.

The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for the assessee's failure to comply with statutory notices and provide necessary information. The non-cooperation was found to hinder crucial investigations into undisclosed foreign bank accounts.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot make an enhancement if the foundational addition, which formed the basis for reassessment, is deleted. The power of the CIT(A) is coterminous with the AO, but they cannot make an addition that the AO was not entitled to make.

The Tribunal held that once the genuineness of the inherited cash from the grandmother was accepted, the receipt of the brother's share should also be accepted. The Tribunal was also convinced of the genuineness of the Rs. 75,000/- received from the assessee's parents.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court judgment relied upon was applicable only to periods prior to April 1, 1989. It found that the AO's order lacked discussion on whether the expenses were actually reimbursed by LIC, which is a crucial factor for allowing deduction.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee earned only Rs. 1,75,063/- as exempt income and had already offered it to tax, no further disallowance under Section 14A should be made. The Tribunal relied on Delhi High Court decisions.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is chargeable to tax in the year of receipt, as per the insertion of clause (viii) to Section 56(2) and Section 145A(b) of the Income-tax Act. The decision of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions on grounds other than those initially cited for reopening the assessment if the original reason for reassessment was not sustained. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as the AO did not make additions based on the initial reason for belief of escaped income.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the AO recorded incorrect facts regarding the total cash deposits in the reasons for reopening. Furthermore, the inquiry letter was considered invalid as no proceedings were pending before the AO at that time.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing and had not filed any adjournment application. Citing previous judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions on grounds other than those initially cited for reopening the assessment if the original reason for reassessment was not sustained. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as the AO did not make additions based on the initial reason for belief of escaped income.

The tribunal held that the interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable in the year of receipt due to the insertion of clause (viii) to Section 56(2) of the Income-tax Act. The decision of the CIT(A) to treat the amount as chargeable to tax was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the AO recorded incorrect facts regarding the total cash deposits in the reasons for reopening. Furthermore, the inquiry letter was considered invalid as no proceedings were pending before the AO at that time.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. This was due to the assessee's failure to appear for the hearing and the absence of any adjournment application.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had earned only Rs. 1,75,063/- as exempt income and had already added this amount to its income, no further disallowance under Section 14A should be made. The Tribunal relied on Delhi High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that if the investment in the new asset is made before the due date for filing a belated return under Section 139(4), the exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied. The assessee's claim for exemption was restored.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reversed interest income was hypothetical and did not represent real income. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, it was held that income must actually result to be taxable, even if a book entry was initially made.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions on grounds other than those initially cited for reopening the assessment if the original reason for reassessment was not sustained. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as the AO did not make additions based on the initial reason for belief of escaped income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with Ms. Bina Aggarwal. The explanation of later sale by the company was considered a fabricated afterthought.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are for the benefit of the Revenue, not the assessee. An assessee cannot use these proceedings to claim deductions or carry forward losses that were not claimed or allowed in the original assessment, especially if they are unrelated to the escaped income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the opening capital and the sale of trees. The late filing of the preceding year's return and the lack of regular assessment indicated an attempt to build capital. The oral confirmation of the transaction was deemed insufficient.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were time-barred and the assessee was not interested in prosecuting them. Following established precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were time-barred and the assessee was not interested in prosecuting them. Following established precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte assessment order was justified due to the assessee's continuous default in complying with notices and producing evidence. The application of the net profit rate of 8% was also upheld.