ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2019

The Tribunal held that the addition of notional interest was squarely covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court, and thus should be deleted. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal also allowed the appeal concerning Section 14A disallowance, finding that interest income exceeded interest paid and there was a direct nexus.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence which contradicted the department's claim about the land's conversion date. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to determine if the land was non-agricultural before the sale deed execution.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's books of accounts were maintained on a mercantile basis, as supported by the tax audit report. The additions made by the AO regarding creditors, accounting charges, and under-recording of contract payments were deleted or restricted, while a partial disallowance of donation was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Since the appeal did not fall under any of the exceptions listed in the amended instructions, it was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or be represented indicates a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence without proper consideration and remanded one issue back to the AO. Regarding general disallowances on expenses, the Tribunal dismissed the ground, relying on its decision in the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence without proper consideration and remanded one issue back to the AO. Regarding general disallowances on expenses, the Tribunal dismissed the ground, relying on its decision in the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that a temporary lull in business does not equate to permanent closure. Maintaining an establishment and pursuing significant compensation for acquired land indicated an intention to resume business, justifying the allowance of certain expenses and depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's conduct indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal agreed that the payments were in the nature of technical services and Section 194J was applicable. However, it allowed the appeal on an alternate plea, directing the AO to verify if the payee had offered the income and paid taxes.

The Tribunal restored the issue of eligibility of the business activities for deduction under Section 10A to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also restored the issue of violation of Section 10A(2)(iii) regarding transfer of machinery to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that cash withdrawals by partners from their current accounts, after salary has been credited, do not attract the provisions of Section 40A(3). Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was set aside.

The Tribunal held that cash withdrawals by partners from their current accounts, after salary has been credited, do not attract the provisions of Section 40A(3). Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment year had not abated at the time of the search and no incriminating material was found, the assessment under section 153A was not warranted. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that a temporary lull in business does not equate to permanent closure. Maintaining an establishment and pursuing significant compensation for acquired land indicated an intention to resume business, justifying the allowance of certain expenses and depreciation.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation for agricultural land is part of capital gains and is exempt under Section 10(37) of the Act, following Supreme Court judgments. The AO was directed to refund the TDS deducted on this interest.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening. Furthermore, the CIT(A)'s finding that no such share capital was introduced was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly distinguished the case law relied upon by the Revenue. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that Section 50C is not applicable to builders and developers for properties held as stock-in-trade. The CIT(A) rightly held that in the absence of evidence proving the assessee received more than the sale consideration stated in the sale deed, the declared sale consideration should be accepted. The AO erred in adopting the circle rate as the sale price. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,90,59,900/- was deleted. For the second issue concerning notional rental income, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the property at Ranjeet Nagar was occupied by the assessee for his business purposes, thus no deemed rental income was assessable. Furthermore, for other properties claimed as vacant, the CIT(A) correctly applied the ratio of cited case laws, including Sh. Sachin R. Tendulkar, holding that if a property remains vacant for the entire year, the assessable income would be NIL under Section 23(1)(c). The CIT(A)'s direction to determine the annual value after allowing the benefit of vacancy was upheld. Consequently, the addition made under the head of house property was deleted. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and rejected the grounds raised by the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It held that a mere change in the head of income during assessment, without concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, does not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue of project expenses as revenue expenditure, in light of the AO's own findings in subsequent years to ensure consistency.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and violated principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeals for non-enclosure of fee payment proof without verifying the details provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and violated principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeals for non-enclosure of fee payment proof without verifying the details provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and violated principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeals for non-enclosure of fee payment proof without verifying the details provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal is considering appeals related to disallowance of depreciation on buildings, disallowance of vehicle maintenance, vehicle depreciation, and telephone expenses. The assessee disputes the disallowances made by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal observed that the authorities below passed ex-parte orders without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue back to the AO for a de-novo assessment, granting proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal corrected a typographical error in its previous order. The correction clarifies that the issue is squarely covered by a Delhi High Court decision in favor of the assessee. This correction does not alter the original decision.

The Tribunal corrected a typographical error in its previous order. The correction clarifies that the issue is squarely covered by a Delhi High Court decision in favor of the assessee. This correction does not alter the original decision.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when there are two possible interpretations of the law on the same set of facts, especially when the AO himself was unsure about the grounds for levying the penalty. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was confirmed.

The Tribunal corrected a typographical error in its previous order. The correction clarifies that the issue is squarely covered by a Delhi High Court decision in favor of the assessee. This correction does not alter the original decision.

The Tribunal noted that neither the assessee nor the revenue had challenged the findings on merits in their earlier appeals. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) to be decided on merits, following the High Court's directions.

The Tribunal noted that neither the assessee nor the revenue had challenged the findings on merits in their earlier appeals. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) to be decided on merits, following the High Court's directions.

The Tribunal noted that neither the assessee nor the revenue had challenged the findings on merits in their earlier appeals. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) to be decided on merits, following the High Court's directions.

The Tribunal noted that neither the assessee nor the revenue had challenged the findings on merits in their earlier appeals. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) to be decided on merits, following the High Court's directions.

The Tribunal noted that neither the assessee nor the revenue had challenged the findings on merits in their earlier appeals. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) to be decided on merits, following the High Court's directions.

The Tribunal remanded the Section 14A disallowance issue back to the AO for re-computation, considering the Maxopp Investments case and limiting it to exempt income. The disallowance for prior period expenses was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s view. The commission payment issue was also remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) does not have the power to remand, the Tribunal itself does. Therefore, the issue of TDS credit was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and a speaking order.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations in cases of non-deliberate delay.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should have either not filed the appeal or withdrawn it, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal noted that neither the assessee nor the revenue had challenged the findings on merits in their earlier appeals. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) to be decided on merits, following the High Court's directions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was non-speaking and contrary to natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act. Both parties agreed to set aside the issues for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that neither the assessee nor the revenue had challenged the findings on merits in their earlier appeals. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) to be decided on merits, following the High Court's directions.

The Tribunal held that the commission paid to directors was for services rendered and not unreasonable. It also found that the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as the AO did not record satisfaction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to short-term capital gains, rent, and keyman insurance policy.

The Tribunal decided several issues, including the allowability of club expenses, the treatment of prior period expenses, the classification of books and periodicals as revenue expenditure, and the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA for power generation. Some grounds were allowed, some dismissed, and one was set aside for further examination.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the lack of proper service of notice under Section 148. The AO failed to prove that the notice was served at the assessee's correct or known address.

The Tribunal decided several issues, including the allowability of club expenses, the treatment of prior period expenses, the classification of books and periodicals as revenue expenditure, and the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA for power generation. Some grounds were allowed, some dismissed, and one was set aside for further examination.