ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2017

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established rules and precedents, the appeals were treated as un-admitted and dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. This was based on a precedent where similar cases involving the Tarun Goyal Group were remanded to consider the group as a whole and assess only the commission income from accommodation entries.

The Tribunal set aside the addition on honorarium expenses and remitted it to the AO for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of salary paid to family members and depreciation on cars was deleted. The addition on account of diversion of funds was remitted to the AO. The addition on account of surplus treated as income was also set aside and remitted to the AO.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established rules and precedents, the appeals were treated as un-admitted and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, which involved procuring seeds, providing inputs, and processing them into certified seeds, did not constitute agricultural operations as defined by law. The primary agricultural operations were performed by farmers, and the assessee's role was more akin to business and processing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, which involved procuring seeds, providing inputs, and processing them into certified seeds, did not constitute agricultural operations as defined by law. The primary agricultural operations were performed by farmers, and the assessee's role was more akin to business and processing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without proper service of notice and adherence to natural justice principles. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, which involved procuring seeds, providing inputs, and processing them into certified seeds, did not constitute agricultural operations as defined by law. The primary agricultural operations were performed by farmers, and the assessee's role was more akin to business and processing.

The Tribunal found that the notice was indeed sent to an incorrect address, as evidenced by the assessment order and the appeal form. Therefore, the penalty levied for non-compliance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 to prove the genuineness of unsecured loans. However, it allowed depreciation on plant and machinery and administrative expenses, considering them necessary for maintaining the corporate structure and preserving business assets.

The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without giving reasons for rejecting the adjournment application. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, which involved procuring seeds, providing inputs, and processing them into certified seeds, did not constitute agricultural operations as defined by law. The primary agricultural operations were performed by farmers, and the assessee's role was more akin to business and processing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without giving reasons for rejecting the adjournment application. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity and without giving reasons for rejecting the adjournment application. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, which involved procuring seeds, providing inputs, and processing them into certified seeds, did not constitute agricultural operations as defined by law. The primary agricultural operations were performed by farmers, and the assessee's role was more akin to business and processing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without giving reasons for rejecting the adjournment application. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without giving reasons for rejecting the adjournment application. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without giving reasons for rejecting the adjournment application. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. As there was no objection from the revenue, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, which involved procuring seeds, providing inputs, and processing them into certified seeds, did not constitute agricultural operations as defined by law. The primary agricultural operations were performed by farmers, and the assessee's role was more akin to business and processing.

The Tribunal held that merely making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The assessee had furnished all details, and their conduct was not contumacious.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the gifts in question, the additions were outside the scope of Section 153A proceedings.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the gifts in question, the additions were outside the scope of Section 153A proceedings.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 54B, finding that the land sold was indeed agricultural land based on evidence of produce. For Section 54F, the Tribunal allowed the deduction for the amount deposited in the capital gains account, directing that any unutilized amount would be taxable in a later year, but disallowed a claim related to a specific payment for the new house.

The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that investments were made from interest-free funds, thus no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted for that part. However, the interest paid on an overdraft facility against fixed deposits was not deductible from interest income, upholding the CIT(A)'s order on this point.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, which involved procuring seeds, providing inputs, and processing them into certified seeds, did not constitute agricultural operations as defined by law. The primary agricultural operations were performed by farmers, and the assessee's role was more akin to business and processing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the specific grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. The CIT(A) should have adjudicated the grounds on their merits. Therefore, the case was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which revises the monetary limit for appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own previous rulings for earlier assessment years. It held that NABL was not engaged in trade, commerce, or business and its primary objective remained charitable.

The Tribunal followed a jurisdictional High Court decision which held that for a hotel to qualify for deduction under Section 80IC, it must be an 'Ecotourism' unit and not just a regular tourism unit. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal followed a jurisdictional High Court decision which held that for a hotel to qualify for deduction under Section 80IC, it must be an 'Ecotourism' unit and not just a regular tourism unit. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions made by the AO. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed as the issues were covered by previous decisions or the CIT(A)'s order was found to be unimpeachable.

The Tribunal found that while rejection of book results was justified due to the lack of a quality-wise stock register, the flat 5% GP rate addition was arbitrary. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 5,00,000 was deemed appropriate to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied were deleted by a higher authority (ITAT), the penalty had no basis and was liable to be cancelled. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in K. C. Builders & Others Vs ACIT.

The Tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court had quashed the notices issued by the Revenue to initiate proceedings under Section 201(3) of the Act. Therefore, the determination of TDS liability by the AO under Section 201/201(1A) did not survive.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the issues were covered by earlier Tribunal orders. The Tribunal agreed that the AO was not justified in disallowing advertisement and marketing expenses and that recruitment and training expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void because the additions made by the AO were not related to the reasons for which the assessment was reopened. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings based on established legal precedents.

The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-decide the issue of risk adjustment after considering specific contentions and judicial precedents. The Tribunal also upheld the exclusion of certain companies from the comparable set by the CIT(A) due to functional dissimilarity, extraordinary profits, mergers/acquisitions, and promoters' involvement in fraud.

The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-decide the issue of risk adjustment after considering specific contentions and judicial precedents. The Tribunal also upheld the exclusion of certain companies from the comparable set by the CIT(A) due to functional dissimilarity, extraordinary profits, mergers/acquisitions, and promoters' involvement in fraud.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that TDS was not practically feasible due to the ad hoc nature of the provision and the uncertainty of payees and amounts. Since the assessee paid due tax and did not claim the provision as a deduction, there was no tax evasion or loss of revenue.

The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of business promotion expenses was unsustainable as no discrepancies were pointed out in the assessee's books of accounts. The Tribunal found no basis for quantifying the disallowance.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), noting that the second proviso to Section 43B of the Act, which dealt with disallowance for late deposit of PF, was omitted by the Finance Act, 2003. The Tribunal also found that the contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that if the quantum addition is deleted, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive. Therefore, the penalties levied were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It was held that the revised return was filed voluntarily before any notice or inquiry from the department, and the income was merely shifted from one assessment year to another, thus not constituting concealment.