ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2019

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the required details and decide the applications afresh. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(E) with the necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in initiating revisionary proceedings. The Tribunal found that the assessee's dominant objective was not profit-making and that its activities were charitable in nature, aligning with previous decisions in the assessee's own case and High Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that assessments framed under Section 153A are without jurisdiction if no incriminating material is found during the search, quashing such additions. Regarding Section 80HHC, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to compute the deduction as originally claimed.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT correctly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263. The assessment orders were deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because the Assessing Officer had failed to properly examine and confront the assessee with seized material that indicated the transactions were accommodation entries.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee's financial results showed improvement and a decline in the labour ratio, a discrepancy in the labour register could not be entirely ruled out. Therefore, a reduced disallowance was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to cash credits found in a bank account/passbook, as it requires credits to be found in the assessee's own books of account. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that no income had accrued to the assessee, and no amount was received or paid to the broker. Since the assessee had not earned any income and had not claimed any losses, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to cash credits found in a bank account/passbook, as it requires credits to be found in the assessee's own books of account. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable because the AO's satisfaction and the show-cause notice were vague, not clearly specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The notice issued by the AO was also found to be bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable because the AO's satisfaction and the show-cause notice were vague, not clearly specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The notice issued by the AO was also found to be bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the payments for royalty and technical guidance fees were revenue in nature, not capital. This decision was based on consistent rulings by the Tribunal and the High Court in the assessee's own cases for prior assessment years.

The Tribunal held that services rendered in relation to prospecting, extraction, or production of mineral oil fall within the meaning of mining and are thus covered by Section 44BB, not FTS. Payments made for such services are taxable only under Section 44BB.

The Tribunal held that the sale of shares was not in dispute as it was through a recognized stock exchange, STT was paid, and the amount was received by cheque after dematerialization. However, the AO's allegation of off-market cash purchase needed verification.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimate basis or when the genuineness of a creditor is not doubted but their capacity to lend is questioned. Merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 20 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of the property was completed on January 30, 2009, when the agreement to sell was executed and possession was handed over, making it not a capital asset in the assessment year under appeal. Consequently, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the services might fall under the definition of technical services in the Income Tax Act, they did not meet the 'make available' requirement of the DTAA. Therefore, the payments were not taxable in India. The issue of limitation was also discussed in light of amendments to Section 201.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The CIT(A) had accepted the peak credit plea without verification from the Assessing Officer, which was raised for the first time before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The CIT(A) had accepted the peak credit plea without verification from the Assessing Officer, which was raised for the first time before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The CIT(A) had accepted the peak credit plea without verification from the Assessing Officer, which was raised for the first time before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to cash credits found in a bank account/passbook, as it requires credits to be found in the assessee's own books of account. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.

The Tribunal held that services rendered in relation to prospecting, extraction, or production of mineral oil fall within the meaning of mining and are thus covered by Section 44BB, not FTS. Payments made for such services are taxable only under Section 44BB.

The Tribunal held that payments made to the Supreme Court and Nainital Bank were liabilities of the company whose shares were sold, and were necessary for the completion of the share deal. Therefore, these payments were rightly considered as part of the acquisition/improvement cost of the shares by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that payments made to the Supreme Court and Nainital Bank were liabilities of the company whose shares were sold, and were necessary for the completion of the share deal. Therefore, these payments were rightly considered as part of the acquisition/improvement cost of the shares by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind and without confronting the assessee with the investigation report. The Tribunal found the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 to be non-est in law and without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the Additional CIT for issuing the notice under Section 148 was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment was deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly invoked Section 263 as the AO had not made sufficient inquiries before allowing the Section 80IC deduction. The Tribunal agreed that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest, upholding the PCIT's order.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of alleged gifts, citing lack of corroborative evidence and following a High Court decision. Additions under Section 68 and consequent commission expenses were also deleted, following previous coordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is applicable only when sums are found credited in the 'books of account' maintained by the assessee. A bank passbook/statement is not considered 'books of account' for this purpose. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that AMP expenses incurred by the assessee cannot be treated as an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the Tribunal found no justification for the TPO's transfer pricing adjustment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the payments were not in the nature of fees for technical services due to the absence of a 'make available' clause and that the DTAA provisions were more favorable. The interest paid for delayed service tax deposit was also held to be allowable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be computed only on investments yielding exempt income and cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The disallowance of audit fee was upheld, and the directions regarding TDS and brought forward losses were affirmed.

The Tribunal held that AMP expenses incurred by the assessee cannot be treated as an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the Tribunal found no justification for the TPO's transfer pricing adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the AO an opportunity to examine the assessee's changed stand and new evidence, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal found potential factual errors in the AO's disallowance of interest and car expenses, and directed the AO to re-verify these claims, especially considering past allowances. Regarding share application money, the Tribunal noted the voluminous documents submitted by the assessee and decided to remand the issue for further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of alleged gifts, citing lack of corroborative evidence and following a High Court decision. Additions under Section 68 and consequent commission expenses were also deleted, following previous coordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should have either not filed the appeal or withdrawn it due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's absence indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Following established legal precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A of the Act are not sustainable in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision which allowed appeals on this legal aspect.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A of the Act are not sustainable in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision which allowed appeals on this legal aspect.

The Tribunal held that an addition on a protective basis by applying the BLT method cannot be sustained, following previous decisions in the assessee's own cases and the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Sony Ericsson.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the consistent declaration of agricultural income over several years established its genuineness. Regarding cash credits, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s verification of the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction parties to be satisfactory.