ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2018

The Tribunal held that the non-service of notice was solely attributable to the conduct of the assessee, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

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 dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the High Court's decision on Section 153C proceedings meant those grounds were dismissed. For other issues, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated facts or relied on materials, leading to a remand for fresh consideration by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in accepting the assessee's plea regarding the wrong rejection of books of accounts, as the assessee failed to produce them despite sufficient opportunities. Consequently, the relief granted by the CIT(A) was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance on purchases, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient documentation. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s partial deletion of the salary disallowance.

The Tribunal held that statements of share brokers, without allowing cross-examination to the assessee, are not admissible as evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the company's financials showed profits and net worth, and the transaction was through banking channels.

The CIT(A) directed the AO to treat the gains as capital gains, noting the shares were acquired through IPOs, held as investments, and the assessee's primary business was commodities. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions, including purchase and sale through banking channels and recognized stock exchanges. The Tribunal also noted that statements used against the assessees were not confronted, and cross-examination was not provided.

The Tribunal held that cash withdrawals from the same bank account during the year should be considered available for re-deposit. However, the claimed gifts of Rs. 5 lakhs were not substantiated with evidence of the donors' creditworthiness, and thus the addition related to gifts was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid, but the CIT(A) erred in not accepting additional evidence regarding the source of deposits. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without the benefit of the remand report. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of all issues in light of the AO's remand report.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions, including purchase and sale through banking channels and recognized stock exchanges. The Tribunal also noted that statements used against the assessees were not confronted, and cross-examination was not provided.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1, finding that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to verify the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, including year-wise and student-wise details of fees received, bank statements, and ledger accounts. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not mention any violation of conditions prescribed under Sections 11 & 12, making the denial of benefits unjustified. Ground No. 2 was also allowed, as the Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide any benefit to trustees or relatives, and the creditors' identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were proven. The Tribunal pointed out a lapse on the part of the AO in not considering the society's bank account transactions. For Ground No. 3, the Tribunal noted that depreciation had been allowed in past years and AY 2011-12. The AO's reasoning that the Written Down Value (WDV) was zero was not adequately supported. Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujrati Charitable Foundation, the Tribunal remanded the issue of depreciation back to the AO for a fresh decision, considering the assessee's evidence and the cited judgment. The assessee was to be given an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions, including purchase and sale through banking channels and recognized stock exchanges. The Tribunal also noted that statements used against the assessees were not confronted, and cross-examination was not provided.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions, including purchase and sale through banking channels and recognized stock exchanges. The Tribunal also noted that statements used against the assessees were not confronted, and cross-examination was not provided.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions, including purchase and sale through banking channels and recognized stock exchanges. The Tribunal also noted that statements used against the assessees were not confronted, and cross-examination was not provided.

The Tribunal held that statements of share brokers, without allowing cross-examination to the assessee, are not admissible as evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the company's financials showed profits and net worth, and the transaction was through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that statements of share brokers, without allowing cross-examination to the assessee, are not admissible as evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the company's financials showed profits and net worth, and the transaction was through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that statements of share brokers, without allowing cross-examination to the assessee, are not admissible as evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the company's financials showed profits and net worth, and the transaction was through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without the benefit of the remand report. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of all issues in light of the AO's remand report.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing confirmations, bank statements, and other relevant documents. The Assessing Officer failed to examine these documents or gather cogent evidence to prove the share application money was unaccounted income.

The Tribunal held that the addition based on the excel spreadsheet lacked corroborative evidence and followed a precedent where similar additions were deleted. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed due to low tax effect, applying a circular.

The Tribunal held that the expenses were revenue in nature, as they were incurred to earn business income and no capital asset was created. The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. to support its view.

The Tribunal held that several comparables used by the TPO were not suitable due to functional dissimilarity, extraordinary events like acquisitions, or different business models. The AO/TPO was directed to conduct a fresh comparability analysis.

The Tribunal set aside the issue back to the CIT(A) to decide the matters on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to appear and furnish necessary details.

The Tribunal held that the fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for increasing the authorized share capital are capital expenditure. The Tribunal found that such expenditure is not covered under any clause of Section 35D(2)(c) of the Act, unless it is in connection with the issue for public subscription. The Tribunal noted that this was not the case before them, as the assessee had not incurred the expenditure in connection with a public issue. The Tribunal relied on the decision of a coordinate bench, which followed the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in 188 ITR 151. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal and dismissed all grounds. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merit. In the interest of justice, the ITAT restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Following this circular, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2008. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the expenses related to routine repairs and maintenance in the hotel business are revenue in nature and not capital, even if some have enduring benefit. It also held that director's travel expenditure was for business purposes, especially since the AO had accepted similar claims in subsequent years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing the assessee with proper opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing the assessee with proper opportunity.

The Tribunal held that simply because sundry creditors could not respond after a decade, it does not render the creditors bogus or not genuine, especially when the assessee provided bills, payment details, and confirmations. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was pending at the time of the search, and therefore, the Kabul Chawla decision's conditions were not met. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for deciding the merit of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made purely on an estimated basis, and the Assessing Officer could not establish how the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the AO relied heavily on investigation reports without providing the assessee with an opportunity to rebut or cross-examine the statements made therein. The assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing basic details, which were not sufficiently enquired into by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO based solely on the DVO's report without any material to show undisclosed payment by the assessee is not sustainable. Provisions like Section 56(2)(vii) are not applicable to companies.

The Tribunal found a prima facie case in favour of the assessee and granted a stay on the disputed demand for six months or until the appeal is disposed of, subject to a partial payment.

The Tribunal noted that documents filed by the creditor companies, which were available with the AO and CIT(A), were not considered. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for de novo consideration, directing verification of these documents and any further details required.

The Tribunal held that expenses for supply of fabrics and lamps, even if providing some benefit, are revenue in nature due to their limited useful life and recurring nature. The Tribunal noted that identical issues in earlier years were decided in favor of the assessee and upheld by the High Court.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies (Apitco Limited, WAPCOS Ltd. (Segment), and IDC India Limited) as they were found to be functionally dissimilar to the assessee's marketing support services. The inclusion of Rediff.com was rejected due to lack of segmental bifurcation and dissimilar revenue streams.

For AY 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Tribunal held that since the original assessments accepted the share premium and no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions were unjustified and directed their deletion. For AY 2008-09, as the original assessment was processed under Section 143(1) and the issue of unsecured loans was not examined, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

For AY 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Tribunal held that since the original assessments accepted the share premium and no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions were unjustified and directed their deletion. For AY 2008-09, as the original assessment was processed under Section 143(1) and the issue of unsecured loans was not examined, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, respectfully following a coordinate bench's decision for AY 2010-11, directed the AO to delete the addition made under Section 195 concerning payments to M/s Snow Star SPA and M/s Pomagalski SA France. Regarding payments to M/s Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam and M/s Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' order, finding them liable for TDS under Section 194C. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on grounds 4 and 5 (related to Section 201), setting aside the order under Section 201 with a direction for the assessee to submit details to the AO. If conditions are met, the assessee would not be treated as an assessee in default. Similar directions were given for calculating interest under Section 201(1A). For payments to STC, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO, directing examination of invoices to determine if tax was deductible only on the value excluding material, and the proviso to Section 201 would apply mutatis mutandis.

The Tribunal held that payments made to private doctors for promoting pharmaceutical products cannot be disallowed under Section 37(1) as they are not an offense under any statute. The CBDT circular, which enlarged the scope of MCI regulations to pharmaceutical companies, cannot be applied retrospectively or create a new burden without legal sanction.