ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2018

The Tribunal held that since the quantum of addition was remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-determination, the penalty proceedings on the same amount should also be remitted to the AO. This decision was based on Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

The Tribunal, following its previous order for similar assessment years, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh in light of the Tribunal's previous directions.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not justified if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessments have attained finality. Therefore, such additions are deleted.

The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance under Section 14A does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty proceedings require independent consideration of facts.

The Tribunal set aside the issue back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the grounds on merits, considering the additional evidence and submissions, and granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment under Section 153A was quashed by a coordinate bench, all additions made by the Assessing Officer automatically stood deleted. Consequently, the penalties levied on these additions also deserved to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment under Section 153A was quashed by a coordinate bench, all additions made by the Assessing Officer automatically stood deleted. Consequently, the penalties levied on these additions also deserved to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to recalculate interest on PDCs from six months after issue was correct, following precedent. Regarding additional payments, the Tribunal held that since these were not claimed as expenses by the assessee, no disallowance could be made, also following precedent.

The Tribunal held that the jewellery claimed as belonging to the wife and received from HUF partition was sufficiently explained by prior disclosures, even if wealth tax returns were old. However, a significant portion of the cash found remained unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the CIT was justified in cancelling the registration granted under Section 12A(a). The irregularities pointed out by the DGIT and the Assessing Officer, indicating that the institution's funds were mismanaged for dubious purposes and not solely for charitable objectives, supported the cancellation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's activities constituted manufacturing. The employee statements were deemed unreliable, and the assessee's registration as a manufacturer under various laws supported its claim.

The Tribunal held that transactions in furtherance of an MOU between group companies, even if recorded as loans, are business transactions. It also found reasonable cause for non-compliance with Section 269SS due to cash payment preferences by farmers and stamp duty authorities.

The Tribunal held that transactions in furtherance of an MOU between group companies, even if recorded as loans, are business transactions. It also found reasonable cause for non-compliance with Section 269SS due to cash payment preferences by farmers and stamp duty authorities.

The Tribunal held that transactions in furtherance of an MOU between group companies, even if recorded as loans, are business transactions. It also found reasonable cause for non-compliance with Section 269SS due to cash payment preferences by farmers and stamp duty authorities.

The Tribunal held that transactions in furtherance of an MOU between group companies, even if recorded as loans, are business transactions. It also found reasonable cause for non-compliance with Section 269SS due to cash payment preferences by farmers and stamp duty authorities.

The Tribunal held that transactions in furtherance of an MOU between group companies, even if recorded as loans, are business transactions. It also found reasonable cause for non-compliance with Section 269SS due to cash payment preferences by farmers and stamp duty authorities.

The Tribunal held that the issues in the present appeal are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 (ITA No. 4639/Del./2015). In that decision, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by treating hostel facilities as business income. The Tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court decision in CIT vs. Karnataka Lingayat Education Society and the Allahabad High Court decision in IIT vs. State of UP, holding that providing hostel facilities to students is incidental to the object of providing education and cannot be considered a business activity. Regarding the depreciation claim, the Tribunal noted that Section 11(6) was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, with effect from 01.04.2015. The Tribunal, following the explanatory notes in Circular No. 1 of 2015 and Supreme Court judgments in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. and CIT vs Vatika Township, held that this amendment operates prospectively from AY 2015-16 and does not apply to the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the disallowance of depreciation was reversed, and the AO was directed to delete the disallowance. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, with its non-obstante clause, mandates that the income of an insurance company is to be computed according to the rules in the First Schedule. Therefore, Section 14A is not applicable to the computation of business profits.

The Tribunal held that transactions in furtherance of an MOU between group companies, even if recorded as loans, are business transactions. It also found reasonable cause for non-compliance with Section 269SS due to cash payment preferences by farmers and stamp duty authorities.

The Tribunal held that transactions in furtherance of an MOU between group companies, even if recorded as loans, are business transactions. It also found reasonable cause for non-compliance with Section 269SS due to cash payment preferences by farmers and stamp duty authorities.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee only provided sales representation services and did not bear significant risks or utilize substantial assets for direct sales by Corning France, no additional profit beyond the 3% commission should be attributed. The Morgan Stanley principle was applied, stating that if transfer pricing analysis adequately reflects functions and risks, no further profit attribution is needed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee only provided sales representation services and did not bear significant risks or utilize substantial assets for direct sales by Corning France, no additional profit beyond the 3% commission should be attributed. The Morgan Stanley principle was applied, stating that if transfer pricing analysis adequately reflects functions and risks, no further profit attribution is needed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to specify and substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, as required by Section 271AAA(2). Therefore, the penalty was not excludable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s observations and directions regarding the shareholders were not called for. It reiterated that deemed dividend can only be assessed in the hands of a shareholder of the lender company, and the assessee itself was not a shareholder of the lender company.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's activities constituted manufacturing. The employee statements were deemed unreliable, and the assessee's registration as a manufacturer under various laws supported its claim.

The Tribunal found that the evidence produced by the assessee was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment for AY 2005-06 was not pending at the time of search and no incriminating material was found, no addition could be made under section 153A. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the loan was not advanced in the ordinary course of business and relied on Supreme Court and Madras High Court judgments. The repayment of the loan in a subsequent year does not alter its nature in the year of disbursement.

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

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not attracted if no exempt income is earned and the genuineness of expenditure is not in doubt, referencing High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The AO must record dissatisfaction before invoking Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not attracted if no exempt income is earned and the genuineness of expenditure is not in doubt, referencing High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The AO must record dissatisfaction before invoking Section 14A.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the books of accounts. However, it directed the AO to adopt a lower GP rate for Moets Catering Services in AY 2002-03 and upheld the CIT(A)'s GP rate for other years and businesses. Additions deleted by the CIT(A) were also upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the books of accounts. However, it directed the AO to adopt a lower GP rate for Moets Catering Services in AY 2002-03 and upheld the CIT(A)'s GP rate for other years and businesses. Additions deleted by the CIT(A) were also upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the books of accounts. However, it directed the AO to adopt a lower GP rate for Moets Catering Services in AY 2002-03 and upheld the CIT(A)'s GP rate for other years and businesses. Additions deleted by the CIT(A) were also upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the books of accounts. However, it directed the AO to adopt a lower GP rate for Moets Catering Services in AY 2002-03 and upheld the CIT(A)'s GP rate for other years and businesses. Additions deleted by the CIT(A) were also upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not attracted if no exempt income is earned and the genuineness of expenditure is not in doubt, referencing High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The AO must record dissatisfaction before invoking Section 14A.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the books of accounts. However, it directed the AO to adopt a lower GP rate for Moets Catering Services in AY 2002-03 and upheld the CIT(A)'s GP rate for other years and businesses. Additions deleted by the CIT(A) were also upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the books of accounts. However, it directed the AO to adopt a lower GP rate for Moets Catering Services in AY 2002-03 and upheld the CIT(A)'s GP rate for other years and businesses. Additions deleted by the CIT(A) were also upheld.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and the Department's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the assessee remained unrepresented due to reasons beyond the counsel's control. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and remanded back for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted the short notice given to the assessee and the assessee's health issues. It found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to explain the cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.