ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2018

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions for admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A and that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh examination of the details.

The Tribunal held that the expression 'a residential house' in Section 54, prior to its amendment, meant more than one residential house. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to exemption for all three purchased properties.

The Tribunal found that while disallowances were justified due to the assessee's failure to substantiate expenses, the amounts made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were excessive. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the disallowances on various expense heads.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's cash in hand and withdrawals. It also found that the share transaction investment was explained by preceding bank credits which were themselves explained by loans from other banks.

The Tribunal held that the AO's approach was incorrect as the assessee had incurred the expenditure and made payments from its bank accounts, and the expenses were reflected in the P&L account. The Tribunal also noted that no incriminating material was found during the search to disturb completed assessments.

The Tribunal held that the AO's approach was incorrect as the assessee had incurred the expenditure and made payments from its bank accounts, and the expenses were reflected in the P&L account. The Tribunal also noted that no incriminating material was found during the search to disturb completed assessments.

The Tribunal held that the AO's approach was incorrect as the assessee had incurred the expenditure and made payments from its bank accounts, and the expenses were reflected in the P&L account. The Tribunal also noted that no incriminating material was found during the search to disturb completed assessments.

The Tribunal held that the land sold by the assessee was not a capital asset as it was situated beyond the specified limits as per the relevant notification. Therefore, the gains arising from its sale were not chargeable to tax under the head capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been filed by the Revenue given the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular also mandates withdrawal or not pressing of pending appeals with a tax effect below the limit.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as the issues had become academic due to the favorable consequential orders. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduct the entire upfront fees in the year they were paid, following the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to allow the entire amount in the year under consideration.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as the issues had become academic due to the favorable consequential orders. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as the issues had become academic due to the favorable consequential orders. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the AO made the addition without considering the bank withdrawals and the savings bank account. The Tribunal decided to set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking ex-parte order without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and considering all evidence.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of bad debts, excess depreciation, and capitalization of interest were wrongly made, following its own previous decisions and High Court rulings. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed on these grounds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim the entire upfront fee as a deduction in the year it was paid, following the Supreme Court's decision. The disallowance of depreciation on pre-operative expenses was also directed to be revisited.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduct the entire upfront fees in the year they were paid, following the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to allow the entire amount in the year under consideration.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the invalid service of notice under Section 143(2) and the arbitrary rejection of submissions by the AO. The issues were set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessment was ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not considered the material on record. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the non-service of notice was solely attributable to the assessee's conduct. Since the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, it was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduct the entire upfront fees in the year they were paid, following the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to allow the entire amount in the year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the seized documents were relevant for a different assessment year and that the additions made by the AO were not based on the seized materials. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 153C were not valid for the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the seized documents were relevant for a different assessment year and that the additions made by the AO were not based on the seized materials. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 153C were not valid for the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect and the CBDT circular. The Senior DR for the Revenue did not press the appeal.

The Tribunal held that making a protective addition in the hands of the assessee when the income was already assessed substantively in the hands of overseas companies was unwarranted. Since the assessee derived no benefit, the protective addition was unjustified.

The tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the seized documents were relevant for a different assessment year and that the additions made by the AO were not based on the seized materials. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 153C were not valid for the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the BLT is not a legally sustainable method for determining the existence of international transactions or computing the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for AMP expenses, as per various High Court decisions. The adjustment made by the TPO/DRP/AO was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduct the entire upfront fees in the year they were paid, following the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to allow the entire amount in the year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine and comment on it. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as the issues had become academic due to the favorable consequential orders. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of bad debts, excess depreciation, and capitalization of interest were wrongly made, following its own previous decisions and High Court rulings. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed on these grounds.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the assessee were for business transactions, such as advance rent, security deposit, advance against sale of property, and official imprest, and not for personal benefit. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India, with no permanent establishment in India, is not taxable in India. Therefore, TDS was not required, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal restored the issue of receipt discrepancy to the AO for fresh verification based on the reconciliation statement, allowing the Revenue's ground for statistical purposes. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 40A(3) addition, finding the assessee's explanation and supporting vouchers to be correct.

The Tribunal held that framing an assessment on a non-existent entity is a jurisdictional defect, not a procedural irregularity curable under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to verify if the AO was informed of the merger during assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to comply with the conditions for escaping penalty under Section 271AAA. It also ruled that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be imposed for undisclosed income where Section 271AAA was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to comply with the conditions for escaping penalty under Section 271AAA. It also ruled that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be imposed for undisclosed income where Section 271AAA was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to comply with the conditions for escaping penalty under Section 271AAA. It also ruled that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be imposed for undisclosed income where Section 271AAA was not applicable.

The Tribunal followed its previous order for an earlier assessment year and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to determine if 85% of the donations were utilized for charitable purposes, which would entitle the assessee to benefits under Section 11 and set aside the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to comply with the conditions for escaping penalty under Section 271AAA. It also ruled that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be imposed for undisclosed income where Section 271AAA was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing details of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for the loans received from the two companies. The AO's rejection of these submissions was not based on sufficient material.

The Tribunal decided that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the payments made to related parties were excessive or unreasonable compared to market rates. Following a coordinate bench's decision for a preceding year, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in rejecting the taxpayer's transfer pricing study without providing adequate reasons and in rejecting comparables without proper justification. The Tribunal also found that the denial of capacity utilization adjustment was arbitrary.

The Tribunal held that the proportionate cost of the plot should not be restricted to the constructed area, especially since sale deeds provided for pro-rata sharing of common areas and parking. The Tribunal noted that the entire property, including common areas, was enjoyed by the flat owners.

The Tribunal held that framing an assessment on a non-existent entity is a jurisdictional defect, not a procedural irregularity curable under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to verify if the AO was informed of the merger during assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to comply with the conditions for escaping penalty under Section 271AAA. It also ruled that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be imposed for undisclosed income where Section 271AAA was not applicable.