ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2018

The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were invalid because no notice under Section 143(2) was issued and incorrect facts were recorded in the reasons for reopening. Therefore, the PCIT had no power to revise the order under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were invalid because no notice under Section 143(2) was issued and incorrect facts were recorded in the reasons for reopening. Therefore, the PCIT had no power to revise the order under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the prior period expenditure related to customer billing rectification and employee claims crystallized during the year should be allowed. However, other components, particularly related to lease rent and unspecified expenditures, were correctly disallowed.

The Tribunal held that while depreciation on the revalued portion of the media library (stock converted to capital asset) was not allowable as per previous ITAT orders, depreciation on the remaining additions to the media library and other expenses disallowed on an ad-hoc basis needed fresh examination. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search concerning the assessee and the share capital was previously accepted, the reopening of the assessment under Section 153A was not justified. The addition made by the AO was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and, following a similar precedent, decided to restore the case to the CIT(A). The issues were remitted for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Accentia Technologies Ltd. and Cat Technologies Ltd. as comparables due to functional dissimilarity and lack of segmental information. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection regarding Section 14A disallowance.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, holding that the royalty expenses were revenue in nature. This decision followed the consistent view of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case for earlier and subsequent years.

The Tribunal held that the Departmental Appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which directs not to file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to non-appearance and the appeal being time-barred. Following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal, following established legal precedents, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The assessee was given liberty to seek recall of the order if they were serious about pursuing the appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the written-off advances as a business loss. The assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate that the advances were wholly and exclusively for business purposes and that recovery efforts were made.

The Tribunal held that the non-compete fees are taxable under the head 'salary' as per the Delhi High Court's decision. Consequently, expenses claimed against this income were disallowed. The reopening of assessment was also upheld.

The Tribunal held that the purchase consideration for each assessee was below the threshold limit for TDS deduction under Section 194-IA. Therefore, the invocation of Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that there was a clear nexus between the interest income earned and the interest expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning such income. Therefore, the interest paid on unsecured loans was deductible.

The Tribunal held that the purchase consideration for each assessee was below the threshold limit for TDS deduction under Section 194-IA. Therefore, the invocation of Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the purchase consideration for each assessee was below the threshold limit for TDS deduction under Section 194-IA. Therefore, the invocation of Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO erred in estimating profits without examining the assessee's books of accounts and in making additions for discrepancies in contractual receipts without proper investigation. The CIT(A) had verified the reconciliation provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the purchase consideration for each assessee was below the threshold limit for TDS deduction under Section 194-IA. Therefore, the invocation of Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during search proceedings without corroborative material evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO were largely unsubstantiated and based on incorrect figures. It also noted that the service of notice under Section 148 was not proven. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issues and consider the evidence submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO were largely unsubstantiated and based on incorrect figures. It also noted that the service of notice under Section 148 was not proven. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issues and consider the evidence submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee submitted documents, the Assessing Officer had presented substantial evidence indicating the company was a sham and involved in bogus long-term capital gains. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without proper consideration of the evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the non-compete fees are taxable under the head 'salary' as per the Delhi High Court's decision. Consequently, expenses claimed against this income were disallowed. The reopening of assessment was also upheld.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during search proceedings without corroborative material evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during search proceedings without corroborative material evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the non-compete fees are taxable under the head 'salary' as per the Delhi High Court's decision. Consequently, expenses claimed against this income were disallowed. The reopening of assessment was also upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment based solely on the Valuation Officer's report, which is an estimate, is bad in law. The report per se is not sufficient for reopening under Section 147.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and loan certificates, to prove the cost of acquisition for the plot sale. It also found that the assessee had demonstrated delivery of shares for the trading loss.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was in jail during the assessment proceedings and did not receive proper opportunity to represent their case before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claims. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening proceedings with a speaking order, violating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not furnish documents requested by the assessee, violating natural justice.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing him to provide a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim with relevant details. The Assessing Officer is to decide the issue afresh after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file, directing that a final opportunity be granted to the assessee to present their case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were invalid because no notice under Section 143(2) was issued and incorrect facts were recorded in the reasons for reopening. Therefore, the PCIT had no power to revise the order under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the cash transactions with his wife and mother. Mere filing of confirmations was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which has statutory force, mandates not pressing appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/-. As the tax effect in this case was below the limit and no exclusion applied, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals, was applicable to the present case. Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed the appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It found that the AO did not controvert the corrected quantitative details provided by the assessee and failed to identify any other discrepancies in the books of account.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the provision for paper expenses was an allowable expenditure based on the matching principle and the fact that actual consumption was significantly higher than the provision. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court and High Court judgments supporting the deduction of accrued liabilities.

The Tribunal held that the advances received by the assessee company from OEIPL were not to be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). It was clarified that the advances were for business purposes, either as a business advance for property construction and sale or as share application money.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law. The notice under Section 148 was issued before recording the reasons, and the issues raised were based on a change of opinion without new tangible material.

The tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the assessee's submissions after the set-aside order. Therefore, the assessee moved an application to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the advances received by the assessee company from OEIPL were not to be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). It was clarified that the advances were for business purposes, either as a business advance for property construction and sale or as share application money.