ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2018

The ITAT held that the penalty proceedings were not sustainable because the AO failed to specifically prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the penalty orders were barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in the CBDT Circular. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A have no evidentiary value. Furthermore, the statement of the third-party MD was contradictory and retracted, making the addition unjustified.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a reasoned decision after affording reasonable opportunity.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a reasoned decision after affording reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed without disposing of the objections to reopening is bad in law. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s direction to restart proceedings.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision where it was held that if the HUF has paid the due taxes, the addition made in the hands of the individual should be deleted. Thus, the addition was deleted.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which sets a monetary limit for appeals. The Revenue was given liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the case falls under exceptions.

The Tribunal held that since the donor was the assessee's son, who was employed and an income tax assessee, and bank withdrawals supported his capacity to gift, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer does not make an addition on the ground for which the assessment was reopened, he ceases to have jurisdiction under Section 147 to make additions on other heads. Therefore, the reassessment order was cancelled.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the SLP against the jurisdictional High Court's decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court, the ratio of that decision should be followed. Therefore, the higher rate of depreciation was allowable.

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

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

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

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record valid satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment or inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's conduct demonstrated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the identity and creditworthiness of the brother and father were proved, and the genuineness of the transactions was also established. Therefore, the additions made in the hands of the assessee were unsustainable.

The Tribunal considered the disallowance of depreciation on capital spares and intangible assets. It also examined the disallowance of preliminary expenses and the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The appeals involved multiple assessment years and cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention, supported by a previous co-ordinate bench decision, was valid. The addition on account of transfer pricing for expatriate support services was deleted, and an ad-hoc disallowance of staff welfare expenses was also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal considered the disallowance of depreciation on capital spares and intangible assets. It also examined the disallowance of preliminary expenses and the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The appeals involved multiple assessment years and cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue.

The Tribunal held that to render substantial justice, the matter should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to file all details and evidence, and the AO is to adjudicate the issues afresh.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that the assessee would otherwise be remediless despite having a favorable legal position. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal ex-parte without considering merits is an infirmity.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed after the rejection of the settlement application were not without jurisdiction, as permitted by the High Court's interim order. However, due to a subsequent High Court order quashing the ITSC's rejection and directing it to proceed on merits, the assessment orders became infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that the assessee would otherwise be remediless despite having a favorable legal position. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the transactions were in the ordinary course of business and related to the sale/purchase of shares, commodities, etc. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the transactions were in the ordinary course of business and related to the sale/purchase of shares, commodities, etc. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.

The Tribunal considered the disallowance of depreciation on capital spares and intangible assets. It also examined the disallowance of preliminary expenses and the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The appeals involved multiple assessment years and cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that the assessee would otherwise be remediless despite having a favorable legal position. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request to admit additional evidence. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT's order was unreasoned as the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee was not examined on merits. Furthermore, the reports relied upon by the CIT were not confronted to the assessee.

The Tribunal considered the disallowance of depreciation on capital spares and intangible assets. It also examined the disallowance of preliminary expenses and the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The appeals involved multiple assessment years and cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue.

The Tribunal directed the inclusion of a comparable company, R Systems International Ltd., in the final list, stating that differences in financial year-end should not lead to rejection if the company is functionally comparable and data can be extrapolated. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the exclusion of Infosys Technologies Ltd. as a comparable, citing functional dissimilarity and a low tax effect circular.

The assessee's counsel stated that they were not pressing the appeal due to the low tax effect. The Revenue had no objection to this.

The Tribunal held that there cannot be two assessment orders in force for the same assessment year. The earlier assessment order under Section 153A was rendered infructuous by the subsequent assessment order under Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed after the rejection of the settlement application were not without jurisdiction, as permitted by the High Court's interim order. However, due to a subsequent High Court order quashing the ITSC's rejection and directing it to proceed on merits, the assessment orders became infructuous.

The Tribunal considered the disallowance of depreciation on capital spares and intangible assets. It also examined the disallowance of preliminary expenses and the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The appeals involved multiple assessment years and cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue.

The Tribunal considered the disallowance of depreciation on capital spares and intangible assets. It also examined the disallowance of preliminary expenses and the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The appeals involved multiple assessment years and cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue.

The Tribunal considered the disallowance of depreciation on capital spares and intangible assets. It also examined the disallowance of preliminary expenses and the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The appeals involved multiple assessment years and cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue.

The Tribunal considered the disallowance of depreciation on capital spares and intangible assets. It also examined the disallowance of preliminary expenses and the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The appeals involved multiple assessment years and cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed after the rejection of the settlement application were not without jurisdiction, as permitted by the High Court's interim order. However, due to a subsequent High Court order quashing the ITSC's rejection and directing it to proceed on merits, the assessment orders became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied on the assessee if the payer was obligated to deduct tax at source. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer not to charge interest under Section 234B.

The Tribunal considered the disallowance of depreciation on capital spares and intangible assets. It also examined the disallowance of preliminary expenses and the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The appeals involved multiple assessment years and cross-appeals from both the assessee and the revenue.

The Tribunal has to decide whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A. The assessee has presented further details of its members and society registration to support its claim.

The Tribunal held that the seized sale deeds did not constitute incriminating material to justify proceedings under Section 153A, as the transactions were already recorded and considered in the original assessment. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the seized sale deeds did not constitute incriminating material to justify proceedings under Section 153A, as the transactions were already recorded and considered in the original assessment. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which was crucial for determining the nature of the hotel contracts. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appears to be not interested in pursuing the appeal due to non-service of notice. The assessee was advised to file an application explaining the non-service if they wished to pursue the appeal.