ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2019

The Tribunal held that TDS is only deductible if the payee is identifiable and the amount payable is ascertainable. If the payee is not identifiable, TDS provisions cannot be applied.

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 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.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 2 of the appeal. It found that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and adopted the circle rate. Section 56(2)(vii) was applicable only to individuals and HUFs in AY 2015-16, not to the assessee society (AOP). Section 56(2)(x) was applicable from April 1, 2017, and also had an exception for educational institutions. Therefore, the AO's action of applying the circle rate was incorrect. The Tribunal also allowed Ground No. 3 of the appeal. It held that even if the transaction were considered a donation, it was a donation in kind (land). The value of the land, being in kind, should be deemed to have been applied for the society's causes in the same year upon receipt. The Tribunal relied on the decision in ITO Vs. Shri Sachyaya Mataji Trust Osian, Jodhpur, stating that donation received in kind cannot be treated as income under Section 2(24)(iia) for the purpose of Section 11. The Tribunal did not expressly decide Ground No. 1, but its allowance of Ground No. 3 implies that the transaction was not to be treated as income. The operative direction is to allow Ground No. 2 and Ground No. 3, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal.

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.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

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.

The Tribunal held that the FOC handsets issued for business purposes constitute revenue expenditure and are allowable as marketing expenses. It also found that the addition to closing stock was a double addition and directed its deletion.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A, especially concerning Rule 8D, should be decided based on the Apex Court's ruling in Maxopp Investments Ltd. They found that for certain assessment years, the disallowance of Rs. 12.07 crores was not maintainable and allowed the assessee's ground.

The assessee informed the tribunal that it did not wish to press the appeal and wanted to withdraw it. The revenue representative did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the interest receipts were capital in nature, similar to previous years' decisions in the assessee's own case which were upheld by the Delhi High Court. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and wanted to withdraw it. The revenue representative did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A, especially concerning Rule 8D, should be decided based on the Apex Court's ruling in Maxopp Investments Ltd. They found that for certain assessment years, the disallowance of Rs. 12.07 crores was not maintainable and allowed the assessee's ground.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A, especially concerning Rule 8D, should be decided based on the Apex Court's ruling in Maxopp Investments Ltd. They found that for certain assessment years, the disallowance of Rs. 12.07 crores was not maintainable and allowed the assessee's ground.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities should have examined the purchasers of agricultural produce to verify the assessee's claim. The case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the assessee produces the purchasers for examination.

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal. It restricted the addition for undisclosed investment to the amount of 31 purchase bills identified by the assessee. The addition under Section 40A(3) was deleted, and the addition for estimated profit was upheld but restricted to 10% of the reduced unexplained stock.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A, especially concerning Rule 8D, should be decided based on the Apex Court's ruling in Maxopp Investments Ltd. They found that for certain assessment years, the disallowance of Rs. 12.07 crores was not maintainable and allowed the assessee's ground.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections against the reopening with an independent speaking order, contrary to the High Court's directions. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that merely claiming a deduction at a higher rate, which is ultimately disallowed or allowed at a lower rate, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars if the expenditure itself is genuine and the claim is bona fide. The assessee's claim of incurring expenditure for research was accepted by the CIT(A), and the dispute was only regarding the rate of deduction.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without verifying assessment records and the MOU. The Tribunal held that the issue requires readjudication at the AO level for verification of the MOU and directed the AO to decide afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without verifying assessment records and the MOU. The Tribunal held that the issue requires readjudication at the AO level for verification of the MOU and directed the AO to decide afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that there was no change in facts from previous assessment years where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the CIT(A)'s order allowing the exemption.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to decide the case in terms of Circular No. 07/2016, after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that hostel and transport facilities provided by an educational institution are intrinsic to its main object of imparting education and are not business activities. Therefore, the surplus generated from these activities cannot be treated as business income.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking section 263 as the AO had conducted inquiries and dropped reassessment proceedings after due consideration of the assessee's replies. The reassessment order merged with the subsequent order dropping proceedings, making the section 263 invocation invalid.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A, especially concerning Rule 8D, should be decided based on the Apex Court's ruling in Maxopp Investments Ltd. They found that for certain assessment years, the disallowance of Rs. 12.07 crores was not maintainable and allowed the assessee's ground.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on securities claimed by the bank was allowable as business expenditure. It also upheld the deletion of additions related to Section 14A disallowances for shares held as stock-in-trade, following Supreme Court precedents.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal as it had concluded an Advance Pricing Agreement with the CBDT. No objection was raised by the revenue.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's absence and lack of communication indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Relying on previous judicial precedents, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance on LTA, citing consistency and judicial pronouncements. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for non-deduction of TDS, finding the payment to be commission to a foreign agent not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that a difference in opinion based on conflicting certificates does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A, especially concerning Rule 8D, should be decided based on the Apex Court's ruling in Maxopp Investments Ltd. They found that for certain assessment years, the disallowance of Rs. 12.07 crores was not maintainable and allowed the assessee's ground.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A, especially concerning Rule 8D, should be decided based on the Apex Court's ruling in Maxopp Investments Ltd. They found that for certain assessment years, the disallowance of Rs. 12.07 crores was not maintainable and allowed the assessee's ground.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision, following its own precedents in earlier years. It held that the royalty payments were revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure, as there was no acquisition of ownership rights.

The CIT(A) was convinced that the assessee had duly filed the source of cash deposits in the bank account, which were reflected in the books of account. The Tribunal upheld this finding, stating the assessee successfully explained the source of the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A, especially concerning Rule 8D, should be decided based on the Apex Court's ruling in Maxopp Investments Ltd. They found that for certain assessment years, the disallowance of Rs. 12.07 crores was not maintainable and allowed the assessee's ground.