ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2019

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a third party's statement without affording the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine, which violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the addition is not sustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 20 lakhs and allowed for retrospective withdrawal of pending appeals below this limit.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the reasons recorded were based on incorrect facts, including wrong amounts and financial years. This indicated a lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was already penalized for non-maintenance of accounts, levying a separate penalty for non-audit of accounts was not justified. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was already penalized for non-maintenance of accounts, levying a separate penalty for non-audit of accounts was not justified. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not remove the defects pointed out by the registry. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and dismissed. The assessee was advised to file an application for restoration after rectifying the defects.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not remove the defects pointed out by the registry. Therefore, the appeal was consigned to records.

The Tribunal followed the decisions of a co-ordinate bench in earlier years, finding no reason to deviate. The Revenue's contentions were considered and found to be covered by previous rulings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted a detailed inquiry and found that the transaction was not in terms of money but an exchange of shares for pre-existing investments. Therefore, Section 68 was not applicable and the revisionary order was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no illegality or infirmity. It noted that the Hon'ble High Court had already decided the issue in favour of the assessee in its own case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no illegality or infirmity. It noted that the Hon'ble High Court had already decided the issue in favour of the assessee in its own case.

The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and allowed the assessee to withdraw the present appeal as the revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to remove defects pointed out by the Registry, including not filing grounds of appeal before CIT(A), missing information in column 11, and not paying the appeal fee.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the reasons recorded were based on incorrect facts, including wrong amounts and financial years. This indicated a lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that notices were not received due to an incorrect email address. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) order was set aside to allow a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that notices were not received due to an incorrect email address. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) order was set aside to allow a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal as belated without specifying what evidence the assessee should have provided. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee one opportunity to substantiate their claim with evidence. The AO was directed to decide the issue after granting a proper hearing.

The Tribunal found that the issue of warranty provision was similar to previous assessment years and decided to set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be granted a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal recalled its earlier order and heard the appeal. Upon review, it was found that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which has retrospective effect.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. This lack of specificity indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that making additions solely on the basis of third-party statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income, reversing the lower authorities' orders. Regarding compensation payment, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides detailed information.

For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the surrendered income was more than the peak credit considered by the CIT(A), thus no addition was warranted. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, restricting the addition to the difference between the estimated profit at 5% and the amount already surrendered by the assessee.

For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that since the assessee had already surrendered additional income exceeding the peak credit considered by the CIT(A), no further addition was warranted. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to the difference between the estimated profit at 5% and the amount already surrendered by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to the unserved notice and lack of updated address. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without properly considering the assessee's documents, which was against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted a similar ITAT decision in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without properly considering the assessee's documents, which was against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted a similar ITAT decision in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without properly considering the assessee's documents, which was against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted a similar ITAT decision in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without properly considering the assessee's documents, which was against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted a similar ITAT decision in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without properly considering the assessee's documents, which was against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted a similar ITAT decision in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without properly considering the assessee's documents, which was against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted a similar ITAT decision in favor of the assessee.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also quashed the assessment order, finding the notice under Section 148 to be bad in law due to the existence of parallel proceedings.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also quashed the assessment order, finding the notice under Section 148 to be bad in law due to the existence of parallel proceedings.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim which is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The claim under Section 35 was based on the same grants that were allowed under Section 36(1)(xii), and thus, it could not be said to be based on inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim which is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The claim under Section 35 was based on the same grants that were allowed under Section 36(1)(xii), and thus, it could not be said to be based on inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim which is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The claim under Section 35 was based on the same grants that were allowed under Section 36(1)(xii), and thus, it could not be said to be based on inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of lease deed registration charges. It found that the agreement stipulated the strategic partner would bear these costs as share premium, indicating they were capital in nature and not revenue expenditure for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessees were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the vendors whose statements were relied upon. The Assessing Officer also failed to conduct proper verification and valuation. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and to allow cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the TPO fell within the safe harbor range of +/- 5% of the ALP. Therefore, no adjustment was required, and the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the TPO's revised order resulted in no transfer pricing adjustment. Therefore, the assessee had no further grievance, and the appeals were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessees were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the vendors whose statements were relied upon. The Assessing Officer also failed to conduct proper verification and valuation. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and to allow cross-examination.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's direction to consider foreign exchange gain/loss as operating in nature, citing consistency and the financial statements of comparable companies. This led to a revised transfer pricing adjustment of Nil.

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 to pay advance tax. The appeal should then be decided on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found the dismissal for want of prosecution unjustified as there was no confirmation of notice service. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in rejecting the adjournment request. The assessee did not have adequate time to prepare the paper book after receiving the notice.