ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2017

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of commission, finding that services were rendered and payments made outside India, thus not taxable in India. The Tribunal also upheld the acceptance of revised capital gains computation, as the facts were on record and the Tribunal has the power to admit such claims.

The Tribunal noted that trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions are not covered by Section 2(22)(e). The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's claim of trade advance based on an 'Ikrarnama' (agreement to sell land) and verify the applicability of Section 2(22)(e).

The CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition made by the AO, holding that the assessment was made in the hands of a non-existent HUF. The tribunal agreed that the land belonged to four individuals and the assessment should have been made in their individual capacities.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) incorrectly invoked Section 145(3) as the assessee's method of inventory valuation was correct and followed accounting standards. Therefore, the additions made on account of alleged decline in gross profit were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to interest under Section 244A for the period from 1.4.2003 to 24.3.2006, as there was no delay attributable to the assessee. The CIT(A)'s direction to refer the matter to the Chief Commissioner was reversed.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) incorrectly invoked Section 145(3) as the assessee's method of inventory valuation was correct and followed accounting standards. Therefore, the additions made on account of alleged decline in gross profit were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition of share capital was made without relying on any incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the assessment under Section 153A was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices. Following previous decisions on identical facts, the Tribunal found the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) to be unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper service of notice and without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal rejected the grounds challenging the reopening, finding the notice was served. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to produce bills and justify the genuineness of purchases.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that non-compete fees do not qualify as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the Sharp Business Systems case.

The Tribunal held that interest under section 234A is leviable for the entire period of delay in filing the return, as the self-assessment tax was also paid belatedly. Consequently, interest under section 234B was also confirmed as the assessee failed to pay advance tax.

The Tribunal held that the profit earned on the sale of shares should be treated as capital gains and not business income. This decision was based on previous rulings by the coordinate bench and the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that Circular No. 21/2015, which specifies the tax effect limit, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was covered by the low tax effect criteria.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the suo motu amount offered by the assessee. The assessee cannot seek to further reduce a disallowance that was already computed based on its own accounts.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-appearance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following its own previous decisions on identical facts, the Tribunal found the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) to be unjustified.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue afresh after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly considering the assessee's adjournment request, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment without fresh material and merely on a change of opinion, which is not permissible. The CIT(A) also failed to properly consider the assessee's objections regarding the reopening.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the tax portion of the demand was already deleted by the AO. The remaining issue was interest under Section 201(1A), which required verification. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly considering the assessee's adjournment request, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the non-appearance of the assessees due to the hospitalization of a key family member. Following its own previous decisions on identical facts, the Tribunal decided to delete the penalties.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's intention was to exploit the warehousing property commercially, and thus the rent received from warehousing activity should be treated as business income. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions on which the penalty was levied were deleted by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, there was no basis for levying the penalty. The penalty order was therefore not sustainable.

The CIT(A) quashed the assessment order, holding that the reasons recorded by the AO for issuing the notice under Section 148 were invalid and did not establish escapement of income. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that while the payer is not liable for short deduction if the payee has paid taxes, interest under Section 201(1A) is still payable up to the date the payee paid the tax. The matter was restored to the AO for recalculation of interest.

The Tribunal held that the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices. Therefore, the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(b) were not justified.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was sufficiently precluded from appearing before the CIT(A) due to the impounding of documents. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the confirmation of penalties by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly considering the assessee's adjournment request, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated merely on the basis of a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer or higher authorities. There must be tangible material to support the reasons for reopening, which was not demonstrated in this case.

The Tribunal held that the hospitalization of Shri Satya Prakash Gupta constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices. Therefore, the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(b) were not justified.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable only when there is an actual receipt of income which does not form part of the total income. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal as no exempt income was claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the suo motu amount offered by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee could not seek to further reduce the suo motu disallowance which was computed based on its accounts.