ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2018

The Tribunal noted that the issue and facts were identical to preceding assessment years where the matter was restored to the TPO. Therefore, the present appeal was also remanded back to the TPO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, following established precedents, treated the appeal as unadmitted due to the assessee's non-appearance. The appeal was dismissed without adjudication on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, citing supporting case law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing relief on corporate guarantee by adopting a rate of 0.5% and that the issue of depreciation on fixed assets, reduced by capital subsidy, was also to be decided in favor of the assessee, following previous judgments.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid because the satisfaction note did not provide reasons to conclude that the seized documents belonged to the assessees. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, directing him to provide the statements relied upon for the addition and to decide the issue afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The ground regarding car depreciation was dismissed as not pressed.

The ITAT held that the Provident Fund Trust was recognized and deleted the disallowance. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the exempt income. The prior period expenditure was allowed, and the reduction for book profit calculation was also upheld.

The Tribunal held that the agreement between the parties clearly defined the scope of services, and the MSU charges were distinct from other support services. Therefore, the disallowance made by the TPO was uncalled for.

The ITAT held that the Provident Fund Trust was recognized and deleted the disallowance. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the exempt income. The prior period expenditure was allowed, and the reduction for book profit calculation was also upheld.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing them to provide the assessee with another opportunity to substantiate the source of the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer is to decide the matter afresh after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid because the satisfaction note did not provide reasons to conclude that the seized documents belonged to the assessees. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not justified. It noted that the creditor regularly filed income tax returns, had a significant opening balance with the assessee, and interest paid on the loan was accepted by the department. The Tribunal concluded that the genuineness of the transaction was not in doubt.

The Tribunal held that the loss incurred on the sale of shares in subsidiary companies, made for commercial expediency to further business objectives, is an admissible business deduction.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid because the satisfaction note did not provide reasons to conclude that the seized documents belonged to the assessees. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's operating profit margin was higher than comparables, even after working capital adjustments, it compensated for the credit period extended. Therefore, no separate adjustment for outstanding receivables was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing relief on corporate guarantee by adopting a rate of 0.5% and that the issue of depreciation on fixed assets, reduced by capital subsidy, was also to be decided in favor of the assessee, following previous judgments.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid because the satisfaction note did not provide reasons to conclude that the seized documents belonged to the assessees. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid because the satisfaction note did not provide reasons to conclude that the seized documents belonged to the assessees. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without proper justification and without considering why it was not produced before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not considered the documentary evidence filed by the assessee and confirmed the addition, which was contrary to natural justice. The Tribunal also noted an error in the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the non-supply of an investigation report.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in revising the assessment order under Section 263 as the AO had applied his mind and taken a possible view based on the available material. Furthermore, the Pr. CIT had passed an assessment order, which is beyond his powers.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of prior period expenses to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide necessary evidence. The ground related to depreciation was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of CSR expenses was not sustainable as Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) was not applicable retrospectively to the assessment year in question. The issue regarding the difference between book income and Form 26AS income was remanded back to the AO for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not decided the applications on merits and had not passed a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was sent back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind independently to the information received, and the approval under Section 151 was mechanical. Consequently, the reassessment order and subsequent proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to adjudicate the issues afresh after considering the additional evidence filed before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that reassessment orders passed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) are bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment orders were cancelled.

The Tribunal set aside the additions under Section 69 and commission income additions to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to inquire into the taxability in the hands of beneficiaries. The reduction in commission rate from 1% to 0.75% was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue cannot take inconsistent stands regarding the valuation of the same property in different assessment years or for different co-owners. If the valuation of Rs. 15,23,200 was accepted in a prior assessment for a co-owner, it should be accepted for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that reassessment orders passed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) are bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment orders were cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities rejected the loan restructuring agreement on mere suspicion without proper examination or evidence. The issue of notional interest income was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was based on a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, which had also restored the matter to the AO.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was based on a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, which had also restored the matter to the AO.