ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2019

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting one more opportunity to the assessee. This was done to render substantial justice, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1000.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.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

The Tribunal confirmed the exclusion of Dynalog (India) Ltd. as a comparable, finding it functionally different from the assessee. Regarding Bose Corporation India P. Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the DRP's direction to reduce its GP rate to account for functional dissimilarities.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding stock valuation, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and the Assessing Officer had not raised adverse comments. For the loan waiver issue, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, as the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal stating the assessee did not wish to pursue it, without deciding on the merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash found was supported by the balance sheet of the partnership firm. Therefore, the addition made by the authorities below was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove that the conditional agreements to sell were acted upon or that the balance amount was paid. The addition of Rs. 4,85,74,816/- was deleted, but the issue of Rs. 50 lakhs was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 92B regarding international transactions was prospective, thus excluding corporate guarantee for the assessment year in question. It also directed the AO to verify and allow MAT credit and restored additional grounds for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the AO's show cause notice failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, no penalty was leviable.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to admit the appeal if the assessee establishes a loss and is not liable for advance tax, and to decide on merits otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction during remand proceedings by making additions under Section 68. It directed the AO to adopt a commission rate of 0.50% and exclude inter-group entries as per previous directions.

The Tribunal held that CSR activities are inherently charitable and that the assessee's vocational training activities fall under the definition of 'education' as per Section 2(15). Therefore, the denial of registration and approval was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction during remand proceedings by making additions under Section 68. It directed the AO to adopt a commission rate of 0.50% and exclude inter-group entries as per previous directions.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction during remand proceedings by making additions under Section 68. It directed the AO to adopt a commission rate of 0.50% and exclude inter-group entries as per previous directions.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide details of the bank account where the cash was deposited. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the necessary details and an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's arguments regarding the land's vesting and their role as a POA holder, suggesting these were not adequately considered.

The Tribunal held that since the assessed income was the same as the returned income and both salary and rental incomes were subject to TDS, there was no concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a sufficient opportunity for hearing and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh. The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not properly issued or served, as it was issued after the assessee's death and there were inconsistencies in the recorded reasons and the assessment order date. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of notices does not automatically admit the appeal. Since the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, it was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted as investments were made from own funds and no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income. It also held that the written-off advance, though not a bad debt, was allowable as a business loss under Section 28.

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed allowed for revised remuneration by mutual agreement. It was not disputed that the remuneration paid was within the limits prescribed by Section 40(b)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee from HDA Buildcon (P) Ltd. was in the nature of a commercial transaction, specifically an advance against the sale of property. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 19/2017 and High Court judgments, it was decided that such commercial advances do not fall under the definition of deemed dividend.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the case, particularly the specific details of accommodation entries provided by the AO in the reasons to believe. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not given any factual finding regarding the disclosure of material facts by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the taxability of enhanced compensation depends on whether the conditions under Section 10(37) are met. It was decided that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of these conditions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate the nexus between the incurred expenses and the vehicles sold, even before the Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) restricting the disallowance to 50% was confirmed.

The Tribunal found that the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IC for eco-tourism hotels in Uttarakhand was a matter of interpretation, particularly in light of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's judgment. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the source of cash deposits. The affidavits provided by the claimed investors lacked crucial details like the amount and date of lending, and the deponents' travel details were also missing.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his powers during remand proceedings by making additions under Section 68. It directed the adoption of a commission rate of 0.50% and exclusion of inter-group entries, following previous coordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the AO had not independently applied his mind and relied solely on information from the Investigation Wing. The AO should have first sought clarification from the assessee using Section 133(6) before resorting to reopening.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction during remand proceedings by making additions under Section 68. It directed the AO to adopt a commission rate of 0.50% and exclude inter-group entries as per previous directions.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction during remand proceedings by making additions under Section 68. It directed the AO to adopt a commission rate of 0.50% and exclude inter-group entries as per previous directions.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction during remand proceedings by making additions under Section 68. It directed the AO to adopt a commission rate of 0.50% and exclude inter-group entries as per previous directions.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction during remand proceedings by making additions under Section 68. It directed the AO to adopt a commission rate of 0.50% and exclude inter-group entries as per previous directions.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the provisions of Section 200A, is applicable only from June 1, 2015. Since the default occurred prior to this date, the fee was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction during remand proceedings by making additions under Section 68. It directed the AO to adopt a commission rate of 0.50% and exclude inter-group entries as per previous directions.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction during remand proceedings by making additions under Section 68. It directed the AO to adopt a commission rate of 0.50% and exclude inter-group entries as per previous directions.

The Tribunal held that merely because a claim is not sustainable in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee's claim for HRA was not found to be deliberately inaccurate or intended to evade tax.

The Tribunal held that CSR activities are inherently charitable and that the assessee's vocational training activities fall under the definition of 'education' as per Section 2(15). Therefore, the denial of registration and approval was incorrect.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after proper notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the forfeiture of convertible warrants results in the extinguishment of rights, which qualifies as a transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Following precedent, the Tribunal allowed the claim for short-term capital loss.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction during remand proceedings by making additions under Section 68. It directed the AO to adopt a commission rate of 0.50% and exclude inter-group entries as per previous directions.

The Tribunal held that a low GP rate alone is not sufficient to reject books of accounts. It noted that the books were audited, purchases were supported by vouchers and payments were made through banks, and quantitative details were furnished. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction during remand proceedings by making additions under Section 68. It directed the AO to adopt a commission rate of 0.50% and exclude inter-group entries as per previous directions.

The Tribunal held that there was no proper issuance and service of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the assessment order was liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction during remand proceedings by making additions under Section 68. It directed the AO to adopt a commission rate of 0.50% and exclude inter-group entries as per previous directions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the cash deposits and that the seller's letter regarding stamp duty payment was not adequately investigated by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) should have been admitted. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of all evidence and to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.