ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2019

The Tribunal held that while interest on enhanced compensation is taxable as capital gains under Section 45(5), Section 10(37) specifically exempts income from the transfer of agricultural land. Therefore, the TDS deducted on enhanced compensation should be refunded.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reason plausible and in the interest of justice. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the Department should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Departmental appeal was not pressed and was dismissed.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to the assessee's absence and failure to explain the delay. The ITAT upheld this decision as the assessee also failed to appear and prosecute the appeal before it.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) granted registration for AY 2017-18 based on the application filed for that year. Therefore, no grievance was caused to the assessee by the impugned order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte, non-speaking order, failing to address the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the payments were made for acquiring a capital asset as an investment, not as stock-in-trade. Therefore, Section 40A(3) was not applicable to these advances.

The Tribunal held that the payments were made for acquiring a capital asset as an investment, not as stock-in-trade. Therefore, Section 40A(3) was not applicable to these advances.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order. The decision of the Apex Court in Principal CIT Shimla vs. M/s Aarham Softronics was relied upon, which held that substantial expansion can lead to a new initial assessment year for 100% deduction.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee fall within the purview of Section 44BB of the Act, following a previous decision for the assessment year 2010-11. The issue of tax credit and interest under Section 234D was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) order was contradictory regarding the submission of particulars for seminar expenditure and that the assessee claimed necessary evidence was not considered. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed non-speaking orders without well-reasoned findings in both the Section 12AA and Section 80G applications. Therefore, the orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make a reference to the Valuation Officer for estimating the cost of construction without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Since the books were not rejected and no discrepancies were pointed out, the reference to the VO was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make a reference to the Valuation Officer for estimating the cost of construction without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Since the books were not rejected and no discrepancies were pointed out, the reference to the VO was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the AO with a reasonable opportunity to submit a remand report on the additional evidence. The additional evidence was also not properly admitted. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order and had merely upheld the AO's decision without independent justification. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the first appeal was correctly dismissed as it was not filed electronically. However, the second electronically filed appeal should have been considered on merits after condoning the delay, as the initial dismissal was on technical grounds.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte and non-speaking orders. The CIT(A) did not deal with the merits of the case, making the order unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment on the non-resident payee has since been framed, making the appeals redundant. The assessee withdrew the appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of labour charges due to the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence. The addition of Rs. 2 lacs on account of sundry creditor was also confirmed as the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction before the lower authorities, and additional evidence was not admitted at the appellate stage.

The Tribunal held that the first appeal was correctly dismissed as it was not filed electronically. However, the second electronically filed appeal should have been considered on merits after condoning the delay, as the initial dismissal was on technical grounds.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed non-speaking orders without well-reasoned findings in both the Section 12AA and Section 80G applications. Therefore, the orders were set aside.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of AMP expenses, following a coordinate bench decision that held the application of the Bright Line Test unsustainable. The issue of adjustment for coordination and support services was restored to the TPO for fresh adjudication after examining audited segmental data.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 62,68,311/- for the residential flat investment was incorrect as substantial payment was made and delay was due to developer issues. The disallowance of Rs. 19,00,000/- from the capital gains account was deleted as it could only be taxed after the prescribed period if not utilized.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/- and also stated that pending appeals below this limit would be treated as withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The tribunal, citing ITAT Rules and various judicial precedents, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the software expenses were revenue in nature, citing the case of CIT vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (309 ITR 371), which stated that payments for know-how facilitating day-to-day operations, without transfer of ownership, are revenue expenditure. The Tribunal reasoned that royalty payments, which are recurring, are for the use of a trademark and not for acquiring an enduring benefit, thus being revenue expenditure. The disallowance of prior period expenses was upheld, as the assessee failed to produce adequate supporting documents to establish that the expenses crystallised during the year under consideration, drawing support from a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2005-06. The disallowance under Section 14A was not fully detailed in the provided extract, but the Tribunal noted a consistent view adopted by the CIT(A) and mentioned that the facts were identical to other assessment years where similar disallowances were deleted. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for AY 2005-06, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 1,00,75,000 on royalty payment.

The Tribunal held that the software expenses were revenue in nature, citing the case of CIT vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (309 ITR 371), which stated that payments for know-how facilitating day-to-day operations, without transfer of ownership, are revenue expenditure. The Tribunal reasoned that royalty payments, which are recurring, are for the use of a trademark and not for acquiring an enduring benefit, thus being revenue expenditure. The disallowance of prior period expenses was upheld, as the assessee failed to produce adequate supporting documents to establish that the expenses crystallised during the year under consideration, drawing support from a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2005-06. The disallowance under Section 14A was not fully detailed in the provided extract, but the Tribunal noted a consistent view adopted by the CIT(A) and mentioned that the facts were identical to other assessment years where similar disallowances were deleted. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for AY 2005-06, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 1,00,75,000 on royalty payment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 20,00,000/- and is applicable retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had objected to the valuation by the stamp valuation authority, thus fulfilling the condition for the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2). The lower authorities' orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the software expenses were revenue in nature, citing the case of CIT vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (309 ITR 371), which stated that payments for know-how facilitating day-to-day operations, without transfer of ownership, are revenue expenditure. The Tribunal reasoned that royalty payments, which are recurring, are for the use of a trademark and not for acquiring an enduring benefit, thus being revenue expenditure. The disallowance of prior period expenses was upheld, as the assessee failed to produce adequate supporting documents to establish that the expenses crystallised during the year under consideration, drawing support from a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2005-06. The disallowance under Section 14A was not fully detailed in the provided extract, but the Tribunal noted a consistent view adopted by the CIT(A) and mentioned that the facts were identical to other assessment years where similar disallowances were deleted. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for AY 2005-06, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 1,00,75,000 on royalty payment.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It directed the CIT(A) to verify the assessee's submission that Jain Hospital is a unit of the Arihant Charitable Hospital Society, which was allegedly overlooked.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the subsequent development of a fresh assessment order and the assessee having already filed an appeal against that new order.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed in limine for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents supporting dismissal for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-representation, presuming the assessee was not serious in pursuing it. The assessee may seek recall if a reasonable cause for non-representation is shown.

The Tribunal held that when the underlying quantum addition is deleted, the penalty levied on that addition also cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was liable to be cancelled.

The Tribunal restored the depreciation and interest on advances issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. However, it decided the issue of partner capital contribution in favour of the assessee, finding no justification for the addition in the hands of the firm.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to the foreign entities were in the nature of commission, not fees for technical services. Therefore, the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS was incorrect.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal and decided to dismiss the appeal in limine.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the software expenses were revenue in nature, citing the case of CIT vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (309 ITR 371), which stated that payments for know-how facilitating day-to-day operations, without transfer of ownership, are revenue expenditure. The Tribunal reasoned that royalty payments, which are recurring, are for the use of a trademark and not for acquiring an enduring benefit, thus being revenue expenditure. The disallowance of prior period expenses was upheld, as the assessee failed to produce adequate supporting documents to establish that the expenses crystallised during the year under consideration, drawing support from a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2005-06. The disallowance under Section 14A was not fully detailed in the provided extract, but the Tribunal noted a consistent view adopted by the CIT(A) and mentioned that the facts were identical to other assessment years where similar disallowances were deleted. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for AY 2005-06, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 1,00,75,000 on royalty payment.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal regarding the invalidity of the assessment order due to a notice under section 143(2) being issued on the same day as the return filing. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, holding it to be a nullity.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for a preceding assessment year was restored to the Assessing Officer, who subsequently accepted the assessee's claim. Therefore, the disallowances for the current assessment years were unjustified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete all the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the payments and that the expenses were reasonable and incurred for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action of making additions based on investigation wing inputs without confronting the assessee with the material and without providing an opportunity for cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the entire addition was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified because the incriminating statement of Dr. P. Mahalingam was not confronted to the assessee, nor was the assessee allowed to cross-examine him. Therefore, the statement could not be used as evidence against the assessee.