ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2017

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in adding the entire stock difference as unexplained investment, as crucial excise records and purchase invoices were not considered. Regarding Agarbatti, the addition was restricted to the survey team's valuation.

The Tribunal directed the AO to examine the Replacement Fund claim and to re-examine the losses on the Dwarka Project due to discrepancies found in agreements and payment records. The deletion of additions for cessation of liabilities was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the buyer's liability to deduct and deposit TDS is absolute, irrespective of any alleged extortion by the NRI sellers. The buyer failed to discharge this statutory obligation.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission and brokerage expenses. It found that the bills were not raised in the assessee's name, the diversion of liability was not established, and no corresponding receipts were recognized by the assessee in the same year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for weighted deduction was bonafide, considering the High Court decisions which stated that the DSIR's cut-off date is irrelevant. Therefore, the admittance of the addition did not warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors for the unsecured loans. The cash deposits in creditors' accounts prior to advancing loans were considered suspicious.

The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided material to substantiate that notices were actually served on the assessee. Following the principle of 'audi alteram partem', the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the case back to the AO.

The Tribunal directed the AO to examine the Replacement Fund claim and to re-examine the losses on the Dwarka Project due to discrepancies found in agreements and payment records. The deletion of additions for cessation of liabilities was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of higher studies expenses. It found no employee-employer relationship at the time of studies and noted that the director's appointment was made subsequently to claim the expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing depreciation under Section 32 against income from other sources as per Section 57(ii). It also allowed cash expenses and maintenance expenses after considering documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) correctly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the initial onus of proving the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of parties, and the Assessing Officer had failed to bring contrary material on record.