ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2019

The Tribunal held that the AO had not examined the issue of debit balances written off, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, especially with the insertion of Explanation-2 to Section 263. The Pr. CIT rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263.

The Tribunal allowed the grounds related to the ESOP scheme, following its own prior decision and the Special Bench ruling in Biocon Ltd., which held that ESOP discount is an allowable deduction. The ground regarding carry forward and set-off of losses was dismissed as it was already remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The ITAT held that additions made under Section 153A are valid only if based on incriminating material found during search. Since no such material was found for advertisement expenses or Section 14A disallowances, these additions/disallowances were not sustainable. The tribunal also noted that Section 14A disallowance is not permissible in the absence of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum of assessment was either decided in favour of the assessee or set aside for re-examination, the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) did not survive and was deleted. The Assessing Officer was permitted to initiate penalty proceedings after completion of fresh assessments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a trustee of Government funds, and receipts from testing charges of ICAT/MANESAR should not be treated as income. The disallowance of investment in FDRs was also set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular directing the Department not to file appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20 lakhs.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard at the new address.

The Tribunal held that the matter required reconsideration by the AO as the DVO report had now been received. The AO was directed to re-decide the issue after considering the DVO's report and providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of addition on account of trading results was justified as the net profit declared by the assessee was higher than the profit estimated by the AO. The addition on account of cash deposits was also deleted as the assessee provided adequate explanation with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done in light of a CBDT Circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 20 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made based on material not confronted to the assessee for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. This ground was not adjudicated by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer of the searched party must record satisfaction that the seized documents do not belong to the searched person before issuing a notice under Section 153C. Since this condition was not met, the notice was deemed illegal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to his file for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals. Following established case law, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals, as evidenced by their absence. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution, following established case laws.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution, following established case laws.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was granted mechanically without proper application of mind, as indicated by the PCIT's mere 'approved' notation. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs N. C. Cables Ltd., the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made with reference to incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found in these cases, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made with reference to incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found in these cases, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made with reference to incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found in these cases, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made with reference to incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found in these cases, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made with reference to incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found in these cases, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made with reference to incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found in these cases, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made with reference to incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found in these cases, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide specific evidence for the excess deposits, the nature of deposits and withdrawals suggested they were business-related. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate business income at 8% of the total bank deposits.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) relied solely on the partner's statement during the survey without thoroughly examining the assessee's reconciliation statements. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of business activities and disclosed interest income from both bank accounts. The AO failed to consider withdrawals from the account and the evidence submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were supported by bills, payments were made via banking channels, and no evidence suggested cash recycling back to the assessee. Relying on a co-ordinate bench's decision in an identical case, the Tribunal found no justification for sustaining any part of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were supported by bills, payments were made via banking channels, and no evidence suggested cash recycling back to the assessee. Relying on a co-ordinate bench's decision in an identical case, the Tribunal found no justification for sustaining any part of the addition.

The Tribunal held that Section 271AAA is an overriding provision applicable to searches conducted within a specific period, and it precludes penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s modification was correct.

The Tribunal held that the income of the insurance company should be computed in accordance with Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, and provisions of Sections 28 to 43B are not applicable. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not justified.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was already in the business of manufacturing pharmaceuticals and the expenditure was incurred in the regular course of business for developing a process within the same line of activity, no new asset was created. Therefore, the expenditure should be treated as revenue in nature.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's contentions for condonation of delay. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the condonation of delay and the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest expenses to the Assessing Officer for further evidence. For foreign travel and business promotion expenses, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for substantiation.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were supported by bills, payments were made via banking channels, and no evidence suggested cash recycling back to the assessee. Relying on a co-ordinate bench's decision in an identical case, the Tribunal found no justification for sustaining any part of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were supported by bills, payments were made via banking channels, and no evidence suggested cash recycling back to the assessee. Relying on a co-ordinate bench's decision in an identical case, the Tribunal found no justification for sustaining any part of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were supported by bills, payments were made via banking channels, and no evidence suggested cash recycling back to the assessee. Relying on a co-ordinate bench's decision in an identical case, the Tribunal found no justification for sustaining any part of the addition.

The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee from the projects was its business profit and not royalty. Since the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, the entire profit was attributable to the PE and taxable as business profit. The Tribunal also ruled that interest under Section 234B was not chargeable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, even though the investors were assessed to tax. The assessee's inability to produce the investors for examination further weakened their case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order in haste without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee from the projects was its business profit and not royalty. Since the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, the entire profit was attributable to the PE and taxable as business profit. The Tribunal also ruled that interest under Section 234B was not chargeable.

The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee from the projects was its business profit and not royalty. Since the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, the entire profit was attributable to the PE and taxable as business profit. The Tribunal also ruled that interest under Section 234B was not chargeable.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) to explain its case.