ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2018

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 held that the Assessing Officer's charge was for concealment of income, not furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the CIT(A) had not issued a show cause notice or provided a hearing on the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars, making the order unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue could not point out specific particulars of income that were concealed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity indicated a non-application of mind by the AO.

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 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 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 held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessee and the revenue had filed cross-appeals. A co-ordinate bench had previously set aside the appeal to the AO for a fresh decision after hearing the parties.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.