ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2018

The Tribunal, by majority view, held that additions made under section 153A for completed assessment years are not justified if no incriminating material was found during the search relating to those specific years. Consequently, the disallowance of losses and denial of carry forward benefits were incorrect.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was based on a High Court decision in a similar case, which had remanded the matter for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 was bad in law and without jurisdiction. The approval granted by the competent authority was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, rendering the reassessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that making the same addition in assessment proceedings under Section 153A/153C when it was already subject to appeal in regular assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) amounts to a double addition and is not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal noted that the addition made for unexplained investment in agricultural land, which was the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted by the Tribunal in a prior order. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 80A(5) of the Act, which deals with the original claim, could not be invoked when the assessee had already raised a claim and only pointed out calculation errors. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of the revised calculations.

The Tribunal held that making the same addition in a subsequent assessment under Section 153A/153C, when it was already under appeal from the original assessment under Section 143(3), amounts to a double addition and is not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the conditions for disallowing deduction under Section 54F were not met, as the assessee did not own more than one residential house whose income was chargeable to tax under the head 'Income from house property'. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to provide complete supporting evidence for the cash credit and interest income issues.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the AO to first decide the jurisdictional issue and then proceed on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not addressed the specific submissions of the assessee and had erred in law by assuming penalty is automatically upheld if additions are sustained. The orders were set aside due to incorrect facts and perversity.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the AO to first decide the jurisdictional issue and then proceed on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was perverse as it was based on incorrect facts and was non-speaking. The jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee was also unaddressed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not addressed the specific submissions of the assessee and had erred in law by assuming penalty is automatically upheld if additions are sustained. The orders were set aside due to incorrect facts and perversity.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the conclusion that the AO failed to properly examine evidence and conduct necessary inquiries. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the AO to first decide the jurisdictional issue and then proceed on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and substantial shareholding in the companies receiving interest-free loans, which were engaged in real estate business. Therefore, the commercial expediency of the loans was established.

The Tribunal held that the consortium agreement did not constitute an Association of Persons (AoP). It also ruled that service tax collected by the assessee is not includible in gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the basis for levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was no longer valid as the related Section 263 orders were set aside. Therefore, the penalties were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the consortium agreement did not constitute an Association of Persons (AoP). It also ruled that service tax collected by the assessee is not includible in gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention of a bona fide belief and reasonable cause for not deducting TDS, considering it was the first instance and TDS was deducted in subsequent years. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 was not as per law. This was because the notice was issued after four years from the end of the assessment year, and there was no allegation of the assessee failing to disclose material facts fully and truly.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 was invalid. This was because the notice was issued after four years, and there was no allegation of the assessee failing to disclose material facts fully and truly.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted as the addition was made on an estimated basis and the assessee had provided supporting evidence from the Land Revenue Authority. The Tribunal also noted the lack of clarity regarding the agricultural income of co-owners of the land.

The Tribunal found that the basis for levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was no longer valid as the related Section 263 orders were set aside. Therefore, the penalties were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on income voluntarily disclosed in a Section 153A return when no incriminating material was found during the search. Furthermore, the penalty notice was deemed invalid for not specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was proposed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on a Supreme Court judgment which allowed depreciation on assets even if their cost was previously treated as application of income. The Tribunal noted that Section 11(6) was amended to address this issue prospectively.

The Tribunal held that the jewellery inherited from the mother-in-law should be considered explained, and allowed a higher quantum of jewellery to be explained in the assessee's hands based on CBDT instructions and judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the computation of book profits under Section 115JB(2) should be made without resorting to the computation under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, the addition to book profits under Section 14A was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that receipts from services rendered outside India were chargeable to tax as FTS under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA as they made technology available to the recipient. The Tribunal also held that these receipts were taxable under Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal found that the AO improperly used documents from a prior search with expired limitations. Since the AO merely repeated previous additions without new incriminatory findings from the second search, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The tribunal held that assessments framed against a non-existent entity are void ab initio and a jurisdictional defect. Following the precedent of Spice Entertainment Ltd. vs. CIT, the assessments were quashed.

The tribunal held that assessments framed against a non-existent entity are void ab initio and a jurisdictional defect. Following the precedent of Spice Entertainment Ltd. vs. CIT, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the Settlement Commission had considered similar investments and subsumed them within additional income offered for a later assessment year. The AO was directed to verify if the investments were covered by taxes already paid on opening balances.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Revenue, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on income voluntarily disclosed in a Section 153A return when no incriminating material was found during the search. Furthermore, the penalty notice was deemed invalid for not specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was proposed.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on income voluntarily disclosed in a Section 153A return when no incriminating material was found during the search. Furthermore, the penalty notice was deemed invalid for not specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was proposed.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on income voluntarily disclosed in a Section 153A return when no incriminating material was found during the search. Furthermore, the penalty notice was deemed invalid for not specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was proposed.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on income voluntarily disclosed in a Section 153A return when no incriminating material was found during the search. Furthermore, the penalty notice was deemed invalid for not specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was proposed.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable as the amount was received in FY 1999-2000 and the assessment for that year was time-barred. The amount was also not taxable as cessation of liability under Section 41.

The Tribunal held that receipts from services rendered outside India were chargeable to tax as FTS under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA as they made technology available to the recipient. The Tribunal also held that these receipts were taxable under Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

The tribunal held that assessments framed against a non-existent entity are void ab initio and a jurisdictional defect. Following the precedent of Spice Entertainment Ltd. vs. CIT, the assessments were quashed.