ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the bank statement and balance sheet of the lender, and ambiguity regarding the submission of a crucial letter. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for further verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte without proper consideration of documents and without providing adequate reasons. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 20,00,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be estopped from claiming an exemption if the income is legally exempt, even if initially declared as taxable. The Assessing Officer has a duty to allow exemptions as per law.

The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and the lack of any request for adjournment. Relying on previous judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.

The Tribunal set aside the addition made under Section 68 to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, finding that the lower authorities had not objectively evaluated the valuation report. The issue of taxability under Section 56(2)(viib) was also remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after considering supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the gains from the sale of shares should be treated as capital gains, not business income. This was based on the long holding period of the shares, the maintenance of separate investment and trading portfolios accepted by the department, and substantial dividend income earned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or be represented indicates a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. Following established legal precedents, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or be represented indicates a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. Following established legal precedents, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or be represented indicates a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. Following established legal precedents, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for rejecting the books of accounts were identical to previous assessment years where similar rejections were not upheld. Following the precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the deletion of additions.

The Tribunal held that if the recipient NBFCs have accounted for the interest income and paid their income tax liabilities, then the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) may not be attracted. The issue was remanded back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was no longer interested in prosecuting the appeal due to non-appearance. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed as un-admitted.

The Tribunal held that commission paid to four specific individuals was allowable as business expenditure. However, due to issues not being appreciated in the right perspective, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had previously deleted the quantum addition of Rs. 9,00,000/-. Since the penalty was levied in respect of this addition, and the addition no longer stood, the penalty was deemed to have no basis.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Since the Assessing Officer's fresh order rendered the appeal infructuous, it was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or be represented indicates a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. Following established legal precedents, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal set aside most of the issues back to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to produce books of accounts, vouchers, and bills. The AO was instructed to verify these documents and decide the issues afresh, including the allowability of the Section 80IB deduction.

The Tribunal held that advertisement expenses should be re-examined by the AO considering the High Court's judgment and evidence. Card acquisition expenses were allowed as revenue expenditure following the High Court's decision. The addition on account of VISA shares was set aside as the relevant law was prospective. TDS credit was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on amounts pertaining to the computation of book profit under Section 115JB. This decision followed the precedent set by the Delhi High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was done beyond the period of four years without establishing that the primary facts disclosed by the assessee were false. The notice and subsequent order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or be represented indicates a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. Following established legal precedents, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or be represented indicates a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. Following established legal precedents, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or be represented indicates a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. Following established legal precedents, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of a bonafidely claimed expense does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation on electrical fittings to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to ensure compliance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and to provide the AO with an opportunity to examine the evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries by issuing multiple notices and considering the assessee's detailed replies. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous, and the PCIT's action under Section 263 was unjustified.

The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation on electrical fittings to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to ensure compliance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and to provide the AO with an opportunity to examine the evidence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly imposed. The disallowance was due to expenses not approved by DSIR, and this disapproval occurred after the return was filed, meaning the assessee did not intentionally conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and that the addition made under Section 69C was justified. The assessee's contentions regarding defects in the reopening process were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the approval under the proviso to Section 151(1) was not obtained correctly. It also noted the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) and a finding of failure to disclose material facts by the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation on electrical fittings to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to ensure compliance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and to provide the AO with an opportunity to examine the evidence.

The Tribunal found that an identical issue for the preceding assessment year was restored to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh adjudication. Following its own precedent and the Special Bench decision in LG Electronics, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh determination of the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on AMP expenses.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of accounting, recognizing revenue upon registration of sale deeds, was a recognized method and had been consistently followed. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue would be taxed in subsequent years when the sale deeds were registered, making the CIT(A)'s enhancement academic.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's revision order was not time-barred. However, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Kabul Chawla, it ruled that in cases of completed assessments under Section 153A without incriminating material, the Assessing Officer is not required to make additions or enquiries on issues not related to such material.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing e-TDS returns was a technical breach, especially since TDS was deposited on time and there was no loss to the exchequer. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the approval under the proviso to Section 151(1) was not obtained correctly. It also noted the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) and a finding of failure to disclose material facts by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for rejecting the books of accounts were identical to previous assessment years where similar rejections were not upheld. Following the precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the deletion of additions.

The Tribunal set aside most of the issues back to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to produce books of accounts, vouchers, and bills. The AO was instructed to verify these documents and decide the issues afresh, including the allowability of the Section 80IB deduction.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was crucial to the matter. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication after considering the new evidence and providing an opportunity for a hearing.

The Tribunal restored the issues of travelling expenses, salary to partners, business promotion expenses, and sales promotion expenses back to the lower authorities for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found that the submissions of the assessee were not properly considered by the lower authorities.