ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee under Rule 46A, especially considering the search context and the relevance of the documents. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should grant one more opportunity to the assessee for a fair hearing. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that Infosys Technologies Limited should be excluded from the list of comparables due to functional and economic dissimilarities. It also upheld the exclusion of communication expenses from both export and total turnover, following High Court precedents.

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 assessee had complied with the conditions of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, as the bad debt written off represented income already offered to tax in prior years. The contention regarding admission of additional evidence was also rejected.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without deciding it on merits. The CIT(A) passed a non-speaking ex-parte order, which is against the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal restricted the Section 14A disallowance to the extent of exempt income. It directed deletion of employee expense disallowance due to FBT payment and held rental income should be taxed under 'income from house property'. The Tribunal also allowed Section 80IC deduction and held royalty payments were revenue expenditure.

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 CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee under Rule 46A, especially considering the search context and the relevance of the documents. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal restricted the Section 14A disallowance to the extent of exempt income. It directed deletion of employee expense disallowance due to FBT payment and held rental income should be taxed under 'income from house property'. The Tribunal also allowed Section 80IC deduction and held royalty payments were revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that Infosys Technologies Limited should be excluded from the list of comparables due to functional and economic dissimilarities. It also upheld the exclusion of communication expenses from both export and total turnover, following High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) allowing deduction if TDS is deposited before the due date of filing the return is retrospective. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention and held that the CIT(A) should have considered the appeal on its merits. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were not commercial and did not attract the proviso to Section 2(15). The assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.

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

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reasons for reopening the assessment, violating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts. The CIT(A) also failed to consider these objections.

The Tribunal held that the jewellery belonged to the assessee's wife and therefore could not be added to the assessee's income. It also held that the cash found was justified given the assessee and his wife were senior citizens requiring funds for medical emergencies.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee, and that the dismissal violated principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the IT Act. The order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as the assessee had produced books of account, other documents, and confirmations from suppliers during appellate and remand proceedings. The departmental appeal lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not properly served on the assessee as it was not served on the principal officer or an authorized representative. Therefore, the assessment order was invalid and set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment proceedings were completed before the search, any additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. In the absence of such material, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 54F does not prohibit investment in a new asset in joint name and that the provision should be interpreted liberally. Relying on the Delhi High Court judgment in CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the assessee's material and call for a remand report if necessary.

The ITAT deleted the penalties, finding that the returned income and assessed income were the same, and the revenue had not brought sufficient material to justify the penalty. The Tribunal also noted that the conditions for invoking Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) were not met.

The ITAT deleted the penalties, finding that the returned income and assessed income were the same, and the revenue had not brought sufficient material to justify the penalty. The Tribunal also noted that the conditions for invoking Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) were not met.

The ITAT deleted the penalties, finding that the returned income and assessed income were the same, and the revenue had not brought sufficient material to justify the penalty. The Tribunal also noted that the conditions for invoking Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) were not met.

The ITAT deleted the penalties, finding that the returned income and assessed income were the same, and the revenue had not brought sufficient material to justify the penalty. The Tribunal also noted that the conditions for invoking Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) were not met.

The ITAT deleted the penalties, finding that the returned income and assessed income were the same, and the revenue had not brought sufficient material to justify the penalty. The Tribunal also noted that the conditions for invoking Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) were not met.

The ITAT deleted the penalties, finding that the returned income and assessed income were the same, and the revenue had not brought sufficient material to justify the penalty. The Tribunal also noted that the conditions for invoking Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) were not met.

The ITAT deleted the penalties, finding that the returned income and assessed income were the same, and the revenue had not brought sufficient material to justify the penalty. The Tribunal also noted that the conditions for invoking Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) were not met.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution is not sustainable in law. The CIT(A) is required to decide the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee, by providing reasons.

The Tribunal held that since the re-assessment orders were set aside and all additions were deleted, there was no basis left for levying the penalty. Consequently, the penalty orders were cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the membership fee paid to the Trade Association was for the purpose of business and deductible as it did not provide enduring benefit. It also held that the loss on disposal of assets was not a slump sale but a genuine loss incurred due to shifting premises, hence allowable.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Department should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. The Revenue's appeal was therefore not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Accentia Technologies Ltd. as a comparable due to dissimilar business model, turnover, extraordinary events, and lack of segmental data. The Tribunal also directed that foreign exchange gains/losses be treated as operational income.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding it on merits, especially since the assessee had raised substantial grounds regarding additions made by the AO. The CIT(A)'s order was considered non-speaking and against principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that since the re-assessment orders were set aside and all additions were deleted, there was no basis left for levying the penalty. Consequently, the penalty orders were cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to a defective notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c), as it did not specify the exact charge. The Tribunal also noted that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee has not earned any exempt income during the assessment year, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is permissible. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the copy of accounts filed before the CIT(A) pertained to subsequent years and not the year under consideration. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must correctly implement appellate directions. It also found no basis for charging interest under Section 217 as the Assessing Officer had previously dropped penalty proceedings for non-payment of advance tax.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 20 lakhs. The circular also directed withdrawal or non-pressing of pending appeals below this limit.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the assessee had correctly valued the DEPB licenses and that the disallowances for personal expenses were made without proper consideration of the details provided. The Tribunal also noted that a similar issue for a prior assessment year was decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that part of the deposits were from her husband's income. Considering the husband's substantial salary income and the CIT(A)'s partial relief, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.