ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2019

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting fresh evidence (muster rolls) without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to rebut it, violating Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawals made by the assessee sufficiently covered the deposit. The authorities below did not point out any specific use for these withdrawals, and they remained as cash in hand.

The Tribunal held that the definition of 'agricultural produce' under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998, is wide and includes fish, poultry, and eggs. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(26AAB).

The Tribunal held that the AO had not provided a valid basis for disallowing 50% of the foreign travel expenses. The CIT(A) had considered the details of the travel, which included participation in exhibitions and exploring restaurant tie-ups, and found them to be for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (capital and interest-free unsecured loans) to cover the interest-free advances. Therefore, the disallowance of notional interest was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw appeals for assessment years covered by the MAP resolution with the UK. For the assessment year 2013-14, concerning transactions with a non-UK AE, the matter was remanded to the TPO for determination of ALP as per law.

The Tribunal held that the definition of 'agricultural produce' under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998, is wide enough to include fish, poultry, and eggs. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the exemption under Section 10(26AAB).

The Tribunal found that the increased gross receipts and the rise in expenses like depreciation, salary, and interest to partners adequately explained the surrendered amount. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw appeals for assessment years covered by the MAP resolution with the UK. For the assessment year 2013-14, concerning transactions with a non-UK AE, the matter was remanded to the TPO for determination of ALP as per law.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a due opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the definition of 'agricultural produce' under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998, is wide and includes fish, poultry, and eggs. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(26AAB).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s objection was solely based on the bank statement not clarifying cash withdrawals. Since a bank certificate now confirms these were cash withdrawals, the issue is remitted back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the issue. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider all evidence, including the outcome of the civil suit, and afford the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found contradictory findings by the CIT(A) regarding notice service. It held that the assessee had a sufficient cause for not attending assessment proceedings, as undelivered notices were found in the record and this was not denied by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were defective as they failed to specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following High Court judgments, the Tribunal found this to be a jurisdictional defect.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw appeals for assessment years covered by the MAP resolution with the UK. For the assessment year 2013-14, concerning transactions with a non-UK AE, the matter was remanded to the TPO for determination of ALP as per law.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were defective as they failed to specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following High Court judgments, the Tribunal found this to be a jurisdictional defect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the assessee had not received the CIT(A)'s orders and had provided supporting documentation. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders and directed them to adjudicate the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order had merged with the order of the CIT(A) and therefore, the CIT could not assume jurisdiction under Section 263 for the same issues. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 1994-95, which was upheld by the Allahabad High Court.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the AO/TPO for a fresh determination of the ALP of the international transaction, primarily under the CUP method. For the receivables issue, the AO was directed to adjudicate afresh considering the agreed credit period.

The Tribunal found that the grounds raised by the assessee were identical to those in a previously decided case. Following the reasoning in that case, the Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the assessee had not received the CIT(A)'s orders and had provided supporting documentation. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders and directed them to adjudicate the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw appeals for assessment years covered by the MAP resolution with the UK. For the assessment year 2013-14, concerning transactions with a non-UK AE, the matter was remanded to the TPO for determination of ALP as per law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the benefit of Section 11 and 12 for the assessment year preceding the registration, provided the assessment proceedings were pending and the objects and activities remained the same. The addition for unconfirmed corpus donations was restricted.

The Tribunal restored the penalty appeal to the Assessing Officer. This was done because the quantum appeal was already restored, allowing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings afresh if warranted after deciding the quantum.

The Tribunal found that the grounds raised by the assessee were identical to those in a previously decided case. Following the reasoning in that case, the Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the cash deposits was not considered by the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration of the evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the addition under Section 43B for verification of payments by the AO. It also deleted the addition for bogus expenditure, finding that the AO had not applied his mind and the assessee had treated the amount as income on which taxes were paid.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated against a non-existent entity, making them void ab initio. The assessment order was therefore null and void.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on fresh information. However, it ruled that the entire bogus purchase amount cannot be added to income. The addition should be restricted to the gross profit element embedded in such purchases.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional grounds of appeal on their merits and instead relied on the principle of consistency. Since new grounds were raised, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT for reopening the assessment was not in accordance with Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, as it lacked the required application of mind and recording of satisfaction. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in pursuing the appeals due to non-response to multiple notices. Following established legal precedents, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance with hearing notices. Considering substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in pursuing the appeals due to non-response to multiple notices. Following established legal precedents, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) were not applicable as the contract for share acquisition was completed before the effective date. Regarding the unsecured loan, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, and the AO had not controverted the contentions.

The Tribunal held that the fit-out hire charges were rightly treated as business income, as there were separate agreements for rent and fit-out, and the assessee had disclosed all relevant materials. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in pursuing the appeals due to non-response to multiple notices. Following established legal precedents, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional grounds of appeal on their merits and instead relied on the principle of consistency. Since new grounds were raised, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the case required further verification of accumulated balances. It was decided that the issue should be remitted back to the CIT(A) to re-decide the matter after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional grounds of appeal on their merits and instead relied on the principle of consistency. Since new grounds were raised, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in pursuing the appeals due to non-response to multiple notices. Following established legal precedents, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-examine adjustments for capacity utilization and customs duty, considering their impact on the taxpayer's profitability. It also ordered that transfer pricing adjustments for imported raw materials should be restricted to the value of materials consumed during the year.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had passed the order under Section 144 of the Act. It acknowledged that one of the Directors was undergoing treatment and the company's name was struck off from the Registrar of Companies, which could naturally lead to less interest in tax proceedings. The Tribunal also noted the rift between directors as a reason for proceedings not being taken care of. While ordinarily an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) would be remitted back to him, the Tribunal found that the case remained unrepresented before the Assessing Officer due to a reasonable cause. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after providing a sufficient opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the additional documents filed by the assessee, even if a formal application under Rule 46A was not made, as the assessee had limited opportunity before the Assessing Officer. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that while notices were issued and served, one more opportunity should be granted. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a sufficient hearing opportunity.