ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2017

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance, falling under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.

The Tribunal, considering the absence of the assessee and the lack of interest shown, decided to dismiss the appeal without adjudicating on its merits. The dismissal is in limine.

The Tribunal held that the provision for late delivery charges was an ascertained liability, as actual payments were made and the excess provision was written back. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to record the mandatory satisfaction required under Section 14A(2) before invoking Rule 8D.

The Tribunal held that merely reclassifying income from one head to another, when all material facts were disclosed, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty provisions require strict adherence to their conditions.

The Tribunal, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned order as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, even in case of default. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal found that several comparables relied upon by the TPO were functionally different or lacked necessary segmental data. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the TPO to select new, functionally similar comparables.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance, falling under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the AO passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A) did not consider a crucial affidavit. Therefore, the issue was set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal deleted the protective addition related to AMP expenses, stating that the bright line test is unsustainable in law and the concept of protective addition is not applicable. The issue of set-off of business losses was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had indeed made a calculation error in determining the average margin. Upon verification, the correct average margin was found to be within the permissible range, thus warranting no adjustment.

The CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition after admitting additional evidence, including land records and statements from lessors, which substantiated the assessee's claim of agricultural income. The tribunal found no fault with the evidence or statements and held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof.

The Tribunal held that the AMP expenses were an international transaction as per the agreement with the AE and global guidelines. However, it found that the TPO erred in aggregating procurement and training services, remitting this issue for fresh determination. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision on depreciation for the DVR.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not appreciated the assessee's contention that no deduction under Section 57 was claimed. Therefore, the issue required fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer after proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the SRF accounts are not 'time deposits' because they do not have a fixed maturity period. Withdrawals are permitted based on the requirements of the scheme, not a predetermined date.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of expenses was based on estimation without proper justification. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s treatment of rental income and the restriction of disallowance under Section 14A, citing lack of satisfaction and proper procedure.

The Tribunal noted a contradiction in the AO's stand and that the CIT(A) admitted documents but did not consider them. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the AO passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A) did not consider a crucial affidavit. Therefore, the issue was set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the revised returns were filed voluntarily by the assessee upon advice from new consultants, not due to any confrontation or detection by the AO. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for claiming excess relief was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the revised returns were filed voluntarily by the assessee upon advice from new consultants, not due to any confrontation or detection by the AO. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for claiming excess relief was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not passing a speaking order with reasons for the decision. Therefore, the appeals were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not passing a speaking order with reasons for the decision. Therefore, the appeals were set aside.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. It also held that depreciation on cars parked at the residence of majority stakeholders should not be disallowed if the cars are owned by the company and used for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. It also held that depreciation on cars parked at the residence of majority stakeholders should not be disallowed if the cars are owned by the company and used for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that royalty payments for a specified period with no lump-sum payment do not create enduring benefit and should be treated as revenue expenditure. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances related to UPS depreciation and provisions for gratuity, warranty, and earned leave, remanding the latter for verification.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) cannot be invoked as there was no cessation or remission of liability that resulted in a benefit to the assessee, especially since the holding company later reversed the write-off. Section 28(iv) was also deemed inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) cannot be invoked as there was no cessation or remission of liability that resulted in a benefit to the assessee, especially since the holding company later reversed the write-off. Section 28(iv) was also deemed inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not passing a speaking order with reasons for the decision. Therefore, the appeals were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not passing a speaking order with reasons for the decision. Therefore, the appeals were set aside.

The Tribunal decided to first address the jurisdictional issue regarding the validity of assessment proceedings when the assessee company was dissolved. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the AO had not applied his independent mind to the information received from third parties. The reopening was based solely on the information provided, without any independent verification or application of mind.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for AY 2008-09. However, for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13, the Tribunal held that the matter should have been set aside to the AO for verification of the deduction quantum in light of the Biocon Ltd. decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for AY 2008-09. However, for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13, the Tribunal held that the matter should have been set aside to the AO for verification of the deduction quantum in light of the Biocon Ltd. decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that advances in the nature of business transactions or trade advances are not covered under the provisions of Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal relied on the CBDT circular and High Court decisions supporting this view.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for AY 2008-09. However, for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13, the Tribunal held that the matter should have been set aside to the AO for verification of the deduction quantum in light of the Biocon Ltd. decision.

The Tribunal held that the seized document did not belong to the assessee and was related to the transactions of another entity and its director. Relying on a previous co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found no basis to sustain the addition.

The Tribunal held that since the credit entries in the conduit companies were already considered in the hands of Sh. S.K. Gupta by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, no separate addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was required in the hands of the conduit companies.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for AY 2008-09. However, for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13, the Tribunal held that the matter should have been set aside to the AO for verification of the deduction quantum in light of the Biocon Ltd. decision.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained if the AO initiates proceedings without clearly specifying whether it's for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, penalty on disallowances made under Rule 8D for assessment years prior to its applicability was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained if the AO initiates proceedings without clearly specifying whether it's for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, penalty on disallowances made under Rule 8D for assessment years prior to its applicability was also deleted.