ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2019

The tribunal held that merely capitalizing expenditure in the books does not change its revenue nature. Expenses like salary, communication, and training are inherently revenue in nature and allowable under Section 37, even if capitalized for accounting compliance.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has wide powers under Section 251 of the Act and can direct the AO to initiate proceedings under Section 147/148. This decision was based on the High Court's ruling in Ramesh Chander vs ACIT.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has wide powers under Section 251 of the Act and can direct the AO to initiate proceedings under Section 147/148. This decision was based on the High Court's ruling in Ramesh Chander vs ACIT.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening were vague, lacked application of mind by the AO, and were based on borrowed satisfaction. It also found a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the belated supply of statements and denial of cross-examination.

The tribunal held that merely capitalizing expenditure in the books does not change its revenue nature. Expenses like salary, communication, and training are inherently revenue in nature and allowable under Section 37, even if capitalized for accounting compliance.

The Tribunal decided that depreciation on capital expenditure already allowed in respective years is not allowable again when the income used for such expenditure is claimed for charitable purposes. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the income from securities should be treated as capital gains, not business income, following previous consistent orders. The Tribunal also deleted the Section 14A disallowance, stating the AO failed to record satisfaction as required by law.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening were vague, lacked application of mind by the AO, and were based on borrowed satisfaction. It also found a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the belated supply of statements and denial of cross-examination.

The Tribunal decided that depreciation on capital expenditure already allowed in respective years is not allowable again when the income used for such expenditure is claimed for charitable purposes. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds, remanding some issues back to the AO for fresh verification and orders, while confirming the CIT(A)'s order on others. The appeals were disposed of in a consolidated manner.

The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the Board's instructions. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of vehicle expenses was unjustified as the company could not have personal use of cars, and no finding was made regarding the extent of personal use by directors. The additional ground regarding Section 40A(3) was not admitted due to lack of justification and supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not calling for a remand report from the AO when new documents were submitted. It also found confusion regarding the MCX exchange and directed both issues to be re-examined by the AO.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 30% of the amount, following the principle that amended provisions are curative and should be applied retrospectively. It also restored the issue of deductees offering income for taxation to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Delhi High Court's ruling that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if there is no exempt income.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds, remanding some issues back to the AO for fresh verification and orders, while confirming the CIT(A)'s order on others. The appeals were disposed of in a consolidated manner.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds, remanding some issues back to the AO for fresh verification and orders, while confirming the CIT(A)'s order on others. The appeals were disposed of in a consolidated manner.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the CBDT's instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on several grounds, including the allocation of head office expenses and the treatment of miscellaneous income. However, some grounds related to depreciation and Cenvat credit were dismissed.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds, remanding some issues back to the AO for fresh verification and orders, while confirming the CIT(A)'s order on others. The appeals were disposed of in a consolidated manner.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on several grounds, including the allocation of head office expenses and the treatment of miscellaneous income. However, some grounds related to depreciation and Cenvat credit were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that a belated return filed under section 139(4) cannot be revised under section 139(5). Therefore, the Assessing Officer's rejection of the rectification application was correct.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowances on site expenses and consumables, finding them justified due to lack of proper verification. The addition on account of differences with Form 26AS was also confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide proper reconciliation.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 directs the Department not to file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. The Revenue's appeal was therefore not pressed and was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on several grounds, including the allocation of head office expenses and the treatment of miscellaneous income. However, some grounds related to depreciation and Cenvat credit were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in making an addition to the income based on circumstantial evidence, as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the source of funds. The purchaser's non-compliance further weakened the assessee's case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on account of cash withdrawals and cash sales, as these were explained by the assessee's cash flow statement and books of account. However, a portion of other cash deposits was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the additional grounds without admitting them, obtaining a remand report, or providing a proper hearing. The Tribunal also noted the inconsistency with subsequent assessment years and the principle of consistency.

The Tribunal upheld the action of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to recompute the disallowance. It was held that while the assessee had some own funds, the disallowance was valid on the balance funds not covered by the available capital.

The Tribunal held that a mere mistake in mentioning the wrong section in an assessment order does not invalidate it, especially when the AO has the power to pass the order under a different, correct section. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for 100% deduction on substantial expansion as per Section 80IC, and the AO's disallowance of travel expenses was arbitrary and without basis. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the sweat equity shares did not constitute taxable income as perquisites in the assessment year in question. The addition made by the AO was based on hypothetical income and flawed valuation.

The Tribunal noted that the seized document was found at a location different from the assessee's search premises, making the presumption under Section 132(4A) inapplicable. Furthermore, the AO failed to conduct necessary verification from the seller and the property was jointly purchased, making the entire addition in the assessee's hands unsustainable without further evidence.

The Tribunal held that the provision for warranty was allowable as it met the criteria of a present obligation arising from past events with a reliable estimate. It also held that the technical know-how payments were revenue in nature as they granted a non-exclusive license for a limited period.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case, considering the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to appear without adjournment.

The Tribunal, citing ITAT Rules and judicial precedents, inferred the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The appeal was treated as un-admitted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on account of cash withdrawals and cash sales, as these were explained by the assessee's cash flow statement and books of account. However, a portion of other cash deposits was confirmed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not the owner of the property in AY 2008-09 and the transaction was completed only after the cloud of Urban Land Ceiling Act proceedings was lifted. Therefore, capital gains could not arise in AY 2008-09.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a search, without corroborating material, cannot solely justify additions. Furthermore, the cash payments admitted were made in subsequent financial years, not the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a search, without corroborating material, cannot solely justify additions. Furthermore, the cash payments admitted were made in subsequent financial years, not the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a search, without corroborating material, cannot solely justify additions. Furthermore, the cash payments admitted were made in subsequent financial years, not the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a search, without corroborating material, cannot solely justify additions. Furthermore, the cash payments admitted were made in subsequent financial years, not the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a search, without corroborating material, cannot solely justify additions. Furthermore, the cash payments admitted were made in subsequent financial years, not the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal found that the addition on account of closing stock valuation required reconsideration due to new information and a previous deletion by the Tribunal. For Section 14A, the Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction for disallowing the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee, and the assessee had sufficient own funds for investments.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a search, without corroborating material, cannot solely justify additions. Furthermore, the cash payments admitted were made in subsequent financial years, not the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that provisions for doubtful debts are operating expenses, but provisions for doubtful advances are not necessarily so unless proven to be for business purposes. It rejected the claim for risk adjustment due to lack of data and precedent. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of the addition on software license fees, following its own prior ruling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the CBDT circular mandating that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed.