ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2018

The Tribunal found that the AO had not followed a previous direction from the CIT(A) to verify and allow the claim as per rules. Therefore, the AO's order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the CBDT's instructions regarding the monetary limit for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal, considering the non-appearance of the assessee and the lack of interest shown in prosecuting the appeal, decided to dismiss the appeal. The assessee was informed of the possibility of moving the Tribunal to recall the order by providing valid reasons for non-compliance.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the penalty appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to re-decide the penalty appeal after deciding the quantum appeal, providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if assessments for AY 2009-10 had become time-barred after the ITAT's remand. For AY 2010-11, the AO was instructed to first give effect to the ITAT's order before calculating MAT credit.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO's remand report acknowledged the completeness of the assessee's books of accounts and supporting details. The cash deposits were found to be substantiated by business receipts reflected in the books.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not justified as there was no undisclosed income found in relation to seized materials for the year under consideration. The disclosure of Rs. 10 crores was also not solely attributable to the assessee for the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the issue of royalty payment had attained finality in favor of the assessee in earlier proceedings. The subsequent re-agitation of this issue by the TPO was unsustainable and based on an erroneous impression from a remand order concerning a different issue (AMP).

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under section 153C was not recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, which is a mandatory condition. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was void ab initio.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal unconditionally. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's gross receipts exceeded Rs. 1 crore, necessitating an audit under Section 44AB. Since the assessee failed to get accounts audited, the penalty under Section 271B was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C was not applicable to the purchase of food as it was a sale of material, not a contract for work. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal noted that no borrowed funds were used for investments and the Revenue failed to provide evidence to rebut this.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing sufficient opportunity. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the additions on merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.