ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2019

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to take a consistent view on whether the deposits were explained or constituted cash loans, and if the latter, whether Section 269SS was violated. This was done because penalty proceedings under Section 271D for violating Section 269SS were also initiated and pending.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, stating that since the TDS was deposited before the filing of the return of income, no error was committed. Regarding the capital gains, the Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the assessee's working after the CIT(A)'s direction, rendering the Revenue's grievance otiose.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to exclude comparables like Eclerx Services Ltd and ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd, finding them functionally different from the assessee's low-end ITES services.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied merely because an expenditure claim is not accepted by the AO, especially when the disallowance was on an ad hoc basis without conclusive material. The Tribunal found no evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal admitted the legal ground challenging the reopening of assessment, as it goes to the root of the order and can be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized for the default of their counsel. To render substantial justice, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that proceedings under Section 153A were void as no search warrant was issued in the assessee's name. The Tribunal also quashed the assessment order for AY 2011-12 due to a delayed notice under Section 143(2).

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of M/s Computerland Integrators (India) Ltd. (CIL) for AY 1997-98 was invalid. The Tribunal found that the AO's premise for reopening, that CIL had not filed its return of income, was factually incorrect as returns had been filed. Furthermore, the proceedings were initiated for the examination of share capital, which the Tribunal considered not permissible under Section 147, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions. The AO also failed to form a proper opinion that income had escaped assessment in the hands of CIL. Consequently, the reopening of assessment was quashed, and the impugned assessment orders were also quashed. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no opinion would be expressed on the merits of the additions due to the quashing of the assessment orders. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and all appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.

The Tribunal held that service line deposits are capital receipts, consistent with previous years' orders upheld by the High Court. It also found that the disallowance of legal expenses was ad hoc and without specific justification, thus upholding the deletion of both additions.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A), stating that the assessee had a bona fide belief regarding the depreciation claim and the treatment of foreign exchange fluctuation as a revenue expenditure. It was considered a case of wrong claim, not furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, following a High Court decision in the assessee's own case. The cross-objection regarding TDS credit was allowed for statistical purposes, with directions to the AO to consider the assessee's application.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of M/s Computerland Integrators (India) Ltd. (CIL) for AY 1997-98 was invalid. The Tribunal found that the AO's premise for reopening, that CIL had not filed its return of income, was factually incorrect as returns had been filed. Furthermore, the proceedings were initiated for the examination of share capital, which the Tribunal considered not permissible under Section 147, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions. The AO also failed to form a proper opinion that income had escaped assessment in the hands of CIL. Consequently, the reopening of assessment was quashed, and the impugned assessment orders were also quashed. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no opinion would be expressed on the merits of the additions due to the quashing of the assessment orders. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and all appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of M/s Computerland Integrators (India) Ltd. (CIL) for AY 1997-98 was invalid. The Tribunal found that the AO's premise for reopening, that CIL had not filed its return of income, was factually incorrect as returns had been filed. Furthermore, the proceedings were initiated for the examination of share capital, which the Tribunal considered not permissible under Section 147, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions. The AO also failed to form a proper opinion that income had escaped assessment in the hands of CIL. Consequently, the reopening of assessment was quashed, and the impugned assessment orders were also quashed. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no opinion would be expressed on the merits of the additions due to the quashing of the assessment orders. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and all appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of M/s Computerland Integrators (India) Ltd. (CIL) for AY 1997-98 was invalid. The Tribunal found that the AO's premise for reopening, that CIL had not filed its return of income, was factually incorrect as returns had been filed. Furthermore, the proceedings were initiated for the examination of share capital, which the Tribunal considered not permissible under Section 147, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions. The AO also failed to form a proper opinion that income had escaped assessment in the hands of CIL. Consequently, the reopening of assessment was quashed, and the impugned assessment orders were also quashed. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no opinion would be expressed on the merits of the additions due to the quashing of the assessment orders. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and all appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was dispatched after the due date, making it time-barred. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was dispatched after the due date, making it time-barred. Following the precedent of the ITAT, Cuttack Bench, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and contractual restrictions prevented diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that proceedings under Section 153A were void as no search warrant was issued in the assessee's name. The Tribunal also quashed the assessment order for AY 2011-12 due to a delayed notice under Section 143(2).

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of M/s Computerland Integrators (India) Ltd. (CIL) for AY 1997-98 was invalid. The Tribunal found that the AO's premise for reopening, that CIL had not filed its return of income, was factually incorrect as returns had been filed. Furthermore, the proceedings were initiated for the examination of share capital, which the Tribunal considered not permissible under Section 147, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions. The AO also failed to form a proper opinion that income had escaped assessment in the hands of CIL. Consequently, the reopening of assessment was quashed, and the impugned assessment orders were also quashed. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no opinion would be expressed on the merits of the additions due to the quashing of the assessment orders. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and all appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of M/s Computerland Integrators (India) Ltd. (CIL) for AY 1997-98 was invalid. The Tribunal found that the AO's premise for reopening, that CIL had not filed its return of income, was factually incorrect as returns had been filed. Furthermore, the proceedings were initiated for the examination of share capital, which the Tribunal considered not permissible under Section 147, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions. The AO also failed to form a proper opinion that income had escaped assessment in the hands of CIL. Consequently, the reopening of assessment was quashed, and the impugned assessment orders were also quashed. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no opinion would be expressed on the merits of the additions due to the quashing of the assessment orders. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and all appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.

The Tribunal found a prima facie case for the assessee regarding the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A. Consequently, a stay was granted for six months or until the disposal of appeals, whichever is earlier.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148/147. The Tribunal found that the AO had not referred to any incriminating material found during the search that would grant jurisdiction to reopen the concluded assessment under Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that since the basis of the revised assessment order (the PCIT's order under Section 263) was quashed by the Tribunal itself, the subsequent assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order became non est.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including share allotment letters, demat statements, contract notes, and bank statements, to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was a regular investor and the transactions were conducted through registered brokers on the stock exchange.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not appearing before the CIT(A). It emphasized that substantial justice should be prioritized over technicalities.

The Tribunal held that the claim made by the assessee was a disputable claim where two legitimate views were possible regarding the inclusion of Section 80IB deduction in book profit under Section 115JB. Therefore, it did not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was justified in revising the assessment. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Classic Binding Industries, it was established that substantial expansion does not create a new initial assessment year for claiming 100% deduction under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal held that the commission payments were made for promoting sales in foreign markets, corroborated by agreements and RBI filings. Since similar payments were allowed in earlier years, the disallowance by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal found the dismissal by CIT(A) improper as there was no record of notice service. The order of CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the process of creating wooden crates from wooden planks, thermocol, and other materials results in a new and distinct article with a different name, character, and use, thus qualifying as manufacturing. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and without jurisdiction because the approval for reopening by the Principal CIT was mechanical and lacked application of mind. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment, following established case law on the requirement of proper satisfaction for issuing notices under Section 148.

The Tribunal held that an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for not being e-filed when a subsequent e-filing was done. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO's inquiry under Section 133(6) was not a proper inquiry as no proceedings were pending. Reopening a concluded assessment to investigate the genuineness of a loan was considered a fishing and roving inquiry, making the reassessment order bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred on rented premises for improving the appearance of showrooms and workshops, which did not create new assets or provide enduring benefits, were revenue in nature. The Tribunal also found that the disallowance under Section 14A was not correctly computed by the AO and directed it to be restricted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present its case and substantiate its claim that the advance was a trade advance. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not conduct proper inquiry before concluding the agreement had no basis.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as it was based on the same material available with the AO at the time of original assessment, without any new tangible information. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of depreciation disallowance, finding that the assessee had claimed depreciation only on its proportionate share of assets.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption was a wrong claim, not a false claim, as all particulars were available. Following previous decisions in the assessee's own case and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found it was not a fit case for penalty.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable when TDS has been deducted, even if at a lesser rate. The remedy for short-deduction is to charge interest. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, service tax was payable on a collection/receipt basis. Since the service tax was on unrealized contract receipts and had not become payable as per the rules, it could not be disallowed under Section 43B. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Noble and Hewitt (I) Pvt. Ltd.

The assessee filed a letter requesting to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal summarily without a speaking order and in violation of principles of natural justice. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass a de novo order as per law.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAA could not be sustained. It followed a coordinate bench's decision in an identical case of the assessee's brother, where the deletion of penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the only incriminating document found was a balance sheet and P&L account as of March 31, 2010, which did not relate to the assessment years under appeal. Therefore, the AO was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 153C.