ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2018

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 the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving that the deposits were not made by him. The joint account with an accountant, who was the assessee's authorized representative, was considered suspicious and likely for conducting unaccounted transactions.

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 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 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.

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 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 found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the matter and had merely followed a previous year's order without verifying facts. The existence of two contradictory assessment orders by the AO was also a serious lapse.

The Tribunal held that running school buses exclusively for students and staff is an intrinsic part of the educational activity and not a separate business. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11(4A) do not apply, and the assessee is entitled to exemption.

The Tribunal held that tips collected by the management and distributed to employees are not payments made by or on behalf of the employer and therefore do not attract TDS provisions. Consequently, the levy of tax and interest was deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found relating to the assessment year, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing exemption under Section 11. This decision was based on the consistent view taken by the appellate authorities and the High Court in previous assessment years.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex parte without considering the merits. Following a similar precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. The Revenue's counsel conceded to this fact.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Following High Court precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal held that full payment is not a prerequisite for claiming depreciation and that the assessee had acquired ownership and put the asset to use during the year. The transaction was not considered sham.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's income should be exempted under Section 10(23C) following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the assessee's own case. The AO was directed to grant the exemption accordingly.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it crucial for a proper conclusion on the Section 54B claim. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made for lesser TDS deduction if the assessee acted under a bona fide belief. Regarding the cessation of liability, the Tribunal ruled that a loan taken for acquiring a capital asset, even if waived later, is not taxable under Section 28(iv) if the waiver occurs in a subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 87,91,020/- could not be sustained in the hands of the assessee as the income was already assessed in the hands of M/s. Arham Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition.