ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not fully complied with the requirements of the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order without determining how it was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The filing of Form 10CCB before the Principal CIT was considered sufficient compliance, and the matter was not properly examined by the Principal CIT.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer's file, directing him to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was also directed to appear and explain its case.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of closing stock due to damaged handsets is warranted. The addition made by the Assessing Officer on this score is to be deleted, following a coordinate bench's decision on similar facts.

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 Revenue's appeal was not pressed.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee, providing reasons for the decision. Dismissing solely for non-prosecution was not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of expenditure and the proper service of statutory notices. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) correctly admitted additional evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of expenditure and the proper service of statutory notices. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) correctly admitted additional evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of expenditure and the proper service of statutory notices. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) correctly admitted additional evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's explanation for the delay and that there was no proof of service of the notice. The order was set aside as it violated principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) found that the additions were erroneous as the assessee had collected funds from the public, leading to lawsuits, and that adding both credits and debits simultaneously was incorrect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of expenditure and the proper service of statutory notices. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) correctly admitted additional evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular directing that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee derives income from foreign investments and has offered this income for taxation, the corresponding loss on foreign exchange fluctuation related to these investment activities is an allowable expenditure. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the cash deposits could be correlated with the assessee's car trading business. Consequently, the assessee was to be taxed at 3% on the total turnover after accounting for expenses.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must pass a speaking order. The issue was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision on merits after granting the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the legal heir one more opportunity to present evidence regarding the unsecured loans. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter afresh after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and directed the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The stay application was dismissed, but the main appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee was not maintainable as the CIT(A) had already deleted the addition. The direction to issue a fresh notice was considered a procedural step, and the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee eventually disclosed the income when confronted, it was not a voluntary disclosure. However, the penalty levied at 300% was considered not justified and was restricted to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) is attracted only if the net balance represents an advance received by the assessee. Since the assessee maintained multiple accounts and the cumulative balance was an advance given to the company, the section was not applicable.

The Tribunal found that although the assessee was non-cooperative, they were not given sufficient opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claims. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee was non-cooperative, sufficient opportunity was not provided by the CIT(A). Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's printing and publishing activities qualified for Section 80IC deduction. It also held that the 'trade discount' was not commission requiring TDS, and the delayed EPF deposit was acceptable as it was made before the return filing due date.

The Tribunal noted missing pages in the CIT(A)'s order and inadequate opportunity given by the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal restored the issue of penalty to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the facts and law and providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found no merit in the departmental appeal, confirming that the assessee had submitted complete details and the expenses were incurred for business activities. The AO's disallowance was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of alleged undisclosed jewellery were unjustified, considering prior disclosures and the nature of jewellery. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to undisclosed jewellery.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of alleged undisclosed jewellery were unjustified, considering prior disclosures and the nature of jewellery. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to undisclosed jewellery.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of alleged undisclosed jewellery were unjustified, considering prior disclosures and the nature of jewellery. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to undisclosed jewellery.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of alleged undisclosed jewellery were unjustified, considering prior disclosures and the nature of jewellery. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to undisclosed jewellery.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of alleged undisclosed jewellery were unjustified, considering prior disclosures and the nature of jewellery. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to undisclosed jewellery.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of alleged undisclosed jewellery were unjustified, considering prior disclosures and the nature of jewellery. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to undisclosed jewellery.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of alleged undisclosed jewellery were unjustified, considering prior disclosures and the nature of jewellery. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to undisclosed jewellery.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of alleged undisclosed jewellery were unjustified, considering prior disclosures and the nature of jewellery. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to undisclosed jewellery.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of alleged undisclosed jewellery were unjustified, considering prior disclosures and the nature of jewellery. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to undisclosed jewellery.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were bad in law because the show cause notice did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue must be dismissed in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 20 lakhs. Pending appeals below this limit were to be withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not earn any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made. This is a well-settled position of law.

The Tribunal noted the assessees' applications to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance. It noted that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the assessment year, which was a key factor in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable when income is assessed under Section 115JB and the penalty is levied on additions made under normal provisions. This is supported by the Delhi High Court's decision in Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd.

The Tribunal noted the assessees' applications to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of all the appeals filed by the assessees.

The Tribunal noted the assessees' applications to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was conditional and lacked proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was conditional and lacked proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was conditional and lacked proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed void ab initio.