ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without discussing the merits and without substantiating non-compliance or lack of reasonable cause for adjournment. The principles of natural justice require the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAA is not leviable on the undisclosed income related to artwork valuation and cash, as the assessee substantiated the manner of earning. However, penalty on unexplained jewelry was upheld. The enhancement by the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable as only the AO can levy penalty.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 10,10,476/- was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming this addition.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalty order also does not survive. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the royalty payments were not for acquiring enduring benefits but were recurring in nature, based on sales. The Tribunal also noted that a predecessor CIT(A)'s order on a similar issue for an earlier year was upheld by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted detailed inquiries and taken a permissible view, thus the assessment order was not erroneous. The Pr. CIT was not justified in revising the order under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which directs not to prefer appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-. The Court found that the disputed amount was below this limit and the circular was applicable retrospectively.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal due to low tax effect. Consequently, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee filed a revised return within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(5) of the IT Act. Therefore, the claim of higher depreciation should have been considered.

The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the disallowances of business expenses and depreciation. The Tribunal followed its own prior orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years where similar claims were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed in limine for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee could approach for recall of the order if a reasonable cause for non-representation is shown.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed in limine for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence and lack of representation. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if reasonable cause for non-representation could be shown.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s order was contradictory and passed without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the commission paid to a non-resident agent for services rendered outside India, for promotion of export sales outside India, is not liable for TDS deduction under Section 195. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to their non-appearance. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's absence indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The Assessing Officer failed to refer the valuation to the DVO and did not consider relevant documents and sale instances submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without giving proper opportunity to the assessee and without considering the submitted documents. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh in light of previous co-ordinate bench directions, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the TPO cannot question the business expediency of purchasing intangible assets. Since a coordinate bench had previously set aside the TPO's order for AY 2007-08 and restored the issue for fresh examination, the present disallowance based on that order is not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s confirmation of additions for unexplained unsecured loans and current liabilities, finding the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proof. However, the issue of unexplained cash deposits was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in each case was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application if exceptional circumstances, not discernible from the orders, were later discovered.

The CIT(A) made inquiries behind the assessee's back and decided against the assessee without confronting the information. The Tribunal held that this violated principles of natural justice.