ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2017

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a fair opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to produce the directors of the share applicant companies to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the genuineness of the expenses and payments made by the assessee. Relying on case law, it was found that the AO had arbitrarily brushed aside documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the CIT(A). The case was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to provide a hearing and decide the issues based on facts and law.

The Tribunal restored the issues of unabsorbed depreciation, commission expenses, and agricultural expenses to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee to present necessary details and consider relevant High Court judgments, ensuring a fair opportunity.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, agreeing with the CIT(Appeals) that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee's claim was based on judicial pronouncements and was not malicious.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the addition for household expenses, finding it to be an estimate without sufficient basis. However, it dismissed the grounds related to the date of filing the return and the charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the addition for household expenses, finding it to be an estimate without sufficient basis. However, it dismissed the grounds related to the date of filing the return and the charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B.

The Tribunal held that an assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on assets even if the expenditure for their acquisition was treated as application of income. Section 11(6), which bars depreciation in such cases, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the addition for household expenses, finding it to be an estimate without sufficient basis. However, it dismissed the grounds related to the date of filing the return and the charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the addition for household expenses, finding it to be an estimate without sufficient basis. However, it dismissed the grounds related to the date of filing the return and the charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E by way of an intimation under Section 200A for defaults committed before June 1, 2015. The intimation issued under Section 200A is appealable under Section 246A.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the addition for household expenses, finding it to be an estimate without sufficient basis. However, it dismissed the grounds related to the date of filing the return and the charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B.

The Tribunal held that the fees charged by Ernet India were commensurate with its efforts and costs, and did not indicate a profit motive. Relying on Delhi High Court decisions, it found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the addition for household expenses, finding it to be an estimate without sufficient basis. However, it dismissed the grounds related to the date of filing the return and the charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Regarding the first ground, the Tribunal noted that the reports from ADIT, Kolkata, were dated prior to the issuance of the Section 153A notice, and these reports were not confronted to the assessee. The assessee had submitted confirmations, IT returns, and bank statements, which were ignored by the AO without further inquiry. The Tribunal found that the AO had made the addition without sufficient evidence. Regarding the second ground, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had submitted audited financial statements, which were also filed with the Registrar of Companies. The AO had not provided any cogent evidence of alleged unaccounted investment, nor had he pointed out any mistake in the audited financial statements. The AO had rejected the books of account without proper notice or justification. The Tribunal held that a CA certificate alone cannot be the basis for an addition, especially when the audited financial statements are otherwise accepted. The addition was made without bringing any evidence on record of undisclosed investment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of both additions was found to be correct and not requiring interference.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the commission paid to foreign parties for services rendered outside India did not accrue or arise in India. Therefore, no TDS was required.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the genuineness of the expenses and payments made by the assessee. Relying on case law, it was found that the AO had arbitrarily brushed aside documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the fees charged by Ernet India were commensurate with its efforts and costs, and did not indicate a profit motive. Relying on Delhi High Court decisions, it found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IC, following a previous year's decision. Regarding the enhancement by the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not acquired any right of possession of the buses, which is an essential ingredient of hiring. Therefore, the payment was a contract for service and not a lease, and TDS under Section 194C was correctly applied.

The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were quashed in the assessee's own case by a previous order of the Tribunal. Since the reassessment order was void ab initio, the additions made therein did not survive, and consequently, the penalty levied also did not survive.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IC, following a previous year's decision. Regarding the enhancement by the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The CIT(A) correctly considered the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, followed the procedure under Rule 46A, and found the source of investment to be explained. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 132(4A) is rebuttable and the assessee had successfully rebutted the presumption. The AO's addition was contrary to the DVO's report and other evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the genuineness of the expenses and payments made by the assessee. Relying on case law, it was found that the AO had arbitrarily brushed aside documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO was aware of the assessee's death and should have issued notices to the legal heirs and passed the assessment order in their name. Such a fundamental error cannot be cured by Section 292B of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary details regarding unsecured loans before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the claims.

The Tribunal held that issuing a reassessment notice to a non-existent company is a jurisdictional defect, not a procedural irregularity. Therefore, the reassessment order was void ab initio, following the ratio of Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgments.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the addition for household expenses, finding it to be an estimate without sufficient basis. However, it dismissed the grounds related to the date of filing the return and the charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B.

The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the assessee maintained proper books and stock records, and that the AO had not disbelieved the assessee's valuation methods or item categorization.

The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, holding that disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and other routine disallowances do not automatically amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously decided similar issues for earlier assessment years in the assessee's own case. Following that precedent, the Tribunal found no merit in the current appeal.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea of being a low-paid employee with no knowledge of tax proceedings and believing his counsel, decided to grant a lenient view. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO to determine the tax liability after giving the assessee an opportunity.

The Tribunal held that if no specific query is raised by the Revenue regarding the manner of earning undisclosed income during the search proceedings, the conditions for levying penalty under Section 271AAA are not met. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of interest on tax-free HUDCO bonds, citing the assessee's substantial interest-free funds. However, it dismissed the disallowance of head office expenses due to lack of supporting evidence and upheld the addition of provision for bad and doubtful debts for book profit computation.

The Tribunal held that since the claim for exemption under Section 11 was a debatable legal issue, and the assessee had a bona fide belief, it could not be considered as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was vague and unsustainable because the Assessing Officer did not specify the exact notice that was not complied with. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty for all the years under appeal.

The ITAT found that there was no evidence on record to substantiate that the assessee was served notice for the hearing on 11.07.2016, and the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was vague and unsustainable because the Assessing Officer did not specify the exact notice that was not complied with. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty for all the years under appeal.

The Tribunal held that the issue was a matter of application of law to facts regarding the head of income, not concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was invalid because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not issued. Since the assessee succeeded on this legal ground, the grounds on merit were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the royalty payments were revenue expenditure, as there was no factual difference from a previous assessment year where a similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The assessee consistently paid royalty as per license agreements, and the transferee company had a lien on technical know-how.

The Tribunal held that NIXI's activities were not in the nature of business, following previous Tribunal orders in the assessee's own case and a Delhi High Court decision. Therefore, the exemption under Section 11 was rightly allowed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that NIXI's activities were not in the nature of business, following previous Tribunal orders in the assessee's own case and a Delhi High Court decision. Therefore, the exemption under Section 11 was rightly allowed by the CIT(A).