ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2017

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 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 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 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 depreciation on assets owned by a charitable trust is a necessary deduction on commercial principles when computing income available for charitable application. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing depreciation.

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 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Cheminvest Ltd. The court held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned and the expenditure is genuine.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Cheminvest Ltd. The court held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned and the expenditure is genuine.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was set aside for fresh adjudication.

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 decided to remand the appeal and cross-objection to the CIT(A) for disposal along with other related matters. This was to ensure a comprehensive view considering the survey material which occurred after the reopening notice.

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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions and the High Court's confirmation in the assessee's own case for earlier years. It found no contrary evidence from the Revenue to disturb the findings regarding exemption and depreciation.

The Tribunal held that if there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A. This decision was based on binding precedents from various High Courts.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application without providing a proper opportunity for the assessee to furnish complete details and explanations. The CIT(E) himself admitted that only a part of the reply was filed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that in many cases, the Assessing Officer himself had verified the advances or the customers confirmed the property purchase and payments. For advances received in earlier years, no addition could be made in the current year.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, adhering to the principle of natural justice ('audi alteram partem'). The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, following a similar decision for the assessment year 2013-14 where the facts were identical. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the weighted average method is a fair and accepted method for inventory valuation, as per accounting standards. Since the assessee consistently followed this method and the revenue had accepted it previously, the AO's rejection was unjustified.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of management fees for AY 2008-09, agreeing with the CIT(A) and the previous Tribunal order. For AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal found that the allocation of common expenses needed further examination and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of management fees for AY 2008-09, agreeing with the CIT(A) and the previous Tribunal order. For AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal found that the allocation of common expenses needed further examination and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal followed its previous decisions for the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. It held that the assessee was not involved in trade, commerce, or business and was engaged in charitable activity falling under 'medical relief' as defined in Section 2(15).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that if no exempt income is earned in a particular assessment year, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A. The CBDT Circular cannot override the Act's provisions.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of management fees for AY 2008-09, agreeing with the CIT(A) and the previous Tribunal order. For AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal found that the allocation of common expenses needed further examination and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that if there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A. This decision was based on binding precedents from various High Courts.

The Tribunal held that the provisions for gratuity and leave encashment were fully explained and sustainable, following previous decisions of the ITAT and the Delhi High Court. The additions made by the AO were therefore rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions on account of share application money from companies other than those mentioned in the reasons for reopening. The CIT(A) was also not justified in sustaining such additions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order, lacking cogent reasons and thus unsustainable in law. It emphasized the necessity of reasoned orders for judicial review and fair procedure.

The Tribunal, following a previous identical order, set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to verify the deductee's tax liability and the applicability of the proviso to Section 201(1), considering it retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of provision for leave encashment was a debatable issue and not a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, it could not be rectified under Section 154 of the Act.

The Tribunal, following a previous identical order, set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to verify the deductee's tax liability and the applicability of the proviso to Section 201(1), considering it retrospective.

The Tribunal, following a previous identical order, set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to verify the deductee's tax liability and the applicability of the proviso to Section 201(1), considering it retrospective.

The Tribunal, following a previous identical order, set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to verify the deductee's tax liability and the applicability of the proviso to Section 201(1), considering it retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order, lacking cogent reasons and thus unsustainable in law. It emphasized the necessity of reasoned orders for judicial review and fair procedure.

The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that if no exempt income is earned in a particular assessment year, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A. The CBDT Circular cannot override the Act's provisions.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the Tribunal decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made under Section 68 were subsequently deleted by the ITAT in quantum proceedings, the penalty based on those additions could not survive. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.