ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2017

The ITAT set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order on the admission of appeals and decide them on merit if admitted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the orders mechanically without providing an opportunity to be heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly imposed. The company had already responded that records older than six years were not maintained as per the Companies Act. Furthermore, the Director could not be held personally liable for the company's records, and the penalty order was silent on whether the summons was properly served on the Director.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as the assessee's representative could not argue the case due to the assessee's non-appearance and inability to travel. The Tribunal found no option but to dismiss the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not issuing a notice to the assessee before enhancing the tax liability through rectification. Consequently, the rectification order was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the orders mechanically without providing an opportunity to be heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the Delhi High Court's judgment and had granted relief based on the assessee's submissions without fully appreciating the legal implications. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that making an inadmissible claim for depreciation does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found no illegality in the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as the assessee's representative could not argue the case due to the assessee's non-appearance and inability to travel. The Tribunal found no option but to dismiss the appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as the assessee's representative could not argue the case due to the assessee's non-appearance and inability to travel. The Tribunal found no option but to dismiss the appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as the assessee's representative could not argue the case due to the assessee's non-appearance and inability to travel. The Tribunal found no option but to dismiss the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not issuing a notice to the assessee before enhancing the tax liability through rectification. Consequently, the rectification order was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated beyond a reasonable period of four years, following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation. Therefore, the penalty was barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not issuing a notice to the assessee before enhancing the tax liability through rectification. Consequently, the rectification order was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat jewellery within the limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1916 as explained. The remaining jewellery was to be treated as unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the Delhi High Court's judgment and had granted relief based on the assessee's submissions without due regard to the legal precedent. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the Delhi High Court's judgment and had granted relief based on the assessee's submissions without fully appreciating the legal implications. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the Delhi High Court's judgment and had granted relief based on the assessee's submissions without fully appreciating the legal implications. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not issuing a notice to the assessee before enhancing the tax liability through rectification. Consequently, the rectification order was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as the assessee's representative could not argue the case due to the assessee's non-appearance and inability to travel. The Tribunal found no option but to dismiss the appeals.

The Tribunal found that the AO relied on an overruled judgment and failed to issue a proper show-cause notice. The CIT(A) also failed to adjudicate the claim under Section 48. For the site development cost, the Tribunal allowed 50% of the claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as the assessee's representative could not argue the case due to the assessee's non-appearance and inability to travel. The Tribunal found no option but to dismiss the appeals.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest disallowance to the AO for re-adjudication. This was done in light of Supreme Court decisions that clarified the allowability of interest expenses.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8D is not applicable for Assessment Year 2007-08, as it is effective from AY 2008-09 onwards. The disallowance made by the AO was therefore not tenable.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had observed that if the settlement application was decided in favor of the assessee, the penalty would not sustain. Since the order of the Settlement Commission was not available to the CIT(A) at the time of passing the order, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) to verify the settlement and decide accordingly.

The Tribunal noted that the total investment in the property was considered in the hands of the assessee, despite his wife being a co-owner as evident from the sale deed. It was also observed that the wife was assessed to tax and filed returns, a fact not considered by the AO or CIT(A) when making additions in the assessee's hands. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not appreciated the facts in the correct perspective and the additions were arbitrarily made/sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter back to the AO for adjudication afresh in accordance with law, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The issue of the wife's contribution to the investment and loan repayment was not decided on merits by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order deleting certain additions to be cryptic and not in accordance with law. Therefore, those issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee's ground challenging the validity of assessment proceedings was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of shares was a mode to transfer immovable property, and thus, the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act were applicable. The CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the publication of books was incidental to the assessee's main object of education. Therefore, the royalty income earned from it could not be considered business income, and the assessee was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not issuing a notice to the assessee before enhancing the tax liability through rectification. Consequently, the rectification order was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not issuing a notice to the assessee before enhancing the tax liability through rectification. Consequently, the rectification order was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the orders mechanically without providing an opportunity to be heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not issuing a notice to the assessee before enhancing the tax liability through rectification. Consequently, the rectification order was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the date of possession of the new property should be considered as the date of purchase for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 54F. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the Delhi High Court's judgment and had granted relief based on the assessee's submissions without fully appreciating the legal implications. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the Delhi High Court's judgment and had granted relief based on the assessee's submissions without fully appreciating the legal implications. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the Delhi High Court's judgment and had granted relief based on the assessee's submissions without fully appreciating the legal implications. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated a specific ground raised by the assessee regarding the non-service of a show-cause notice before penalty levy. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance under Section 14A, noting that no dividend income was received by the assessee, citing a Delhi High Court judgment. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition for excess TDS credit, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the credit belonged to the preceding year and no additional receipts were found.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not issuing a notice to the assessee before enhancing the tax liability through rectification. Consequently, the rectification order was deemed void ab initio.