ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal held that year-end accruals, which are reversed in the subsequent year, do not constitute income that has accrued. Consequently, there is no liability to deduct tax at source on such provisions.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and therefore not taxable. This decision was based on multiple Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation and not liable to tax. This decision is based on the Supreme Court's rulings in Ghanshyam (HUF) and Hari Singh & Ors.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, granting the assessee one final opportunity to produce the parties and substantiate the cash deposits. The penalty levied was cancelled as the quantum addition was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, granting the assessee one final opportunity to produce the parties and substantiate the cash deposits. The penalty levied was cancelled as the quantum addition was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee, by providing reasons for the decision as required by Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Dismissing the appeal solely for non-prosecution was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax refund was statutorily received by the assessee firm on contractual work awarded to it. Since the firm existed and declared business income in the relevant assessment year, the refund had to be taxed in the hands of the firm, irrespective of it being shown in the company's books.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and therefore not taxable. This decision was based on multiple Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and therefore not taxable. This decision was based on multiple Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and therefore not taxable. This decision was based on multiple Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its previous order for AY 2004-2005, which was correctly followed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the departmental appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that while the addition for unsubstantiated expenditure was justified, the penalty was not leviable. The assessee had filed an affidavit and the claim was made ten years prior, making it difficult to provide documentary evidence.

For the Rs. 2,48,000/- addition, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to produce the creditor. For the Rs. 10,00,000/- loan, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition, accepting the bank statement as evidence of the transaction.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal was contrary to his earlier directions to examine the additional evidence on merits. The Assessing Officer's remand report was also found to be non-specific. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued mechanically without independent application of mind by the AO, relying solely on the Investigation Wing's report. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued mechanically without independent application of mind by the AO, relying solely on the Investigation Wing's report. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment were quashed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and therefore not taxable. This decision was based on multiple Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and therefore not taxable. This decision was based on multiple Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and therefore not taxable. This decision was based on multiple Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued mechanically without independent application of mind by the AO, relying solely on the Investigation Wing's report. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination, when statements of witnesses were used to make additions, is a serious flaw violating principles of natural justice. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries, the Tribunal deleted the disputed additions.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was imposed has been deleted by the ITAT in the assessee's own case, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the additions on which the penalty was imposed had been deleted by the ITAT in a prior quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.

The Tribunal held that the scholarship expenditure was incurred for the furtherance of the assessee's profession and was allowable as a business expense. It also held that the foreign exchange loss was correctly accounted for and should not be disallowed, even under a cash system of accounting.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without dealing with the issues on merit, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of book results due to infirmities. However, it directed the AO to recompute the addition based on the average net profit ratio of the current and preceding two years, instead of the Gross Profit ratio previously adopted. Consequently, other separate additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the property was occupied by the assessee as its registered office, it could not be considered vacant. Therefore, no notional rent could be added to the assessee's income under Section 23(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case, the additions on which the penalty was imposed had already been deleted by the ITAT in a prior quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.

The Tribunal held that since the entire addition on which the penalty was imposed has been deleted by the ITAT in the quantum appeal, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty is deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AY 2012-13 could not be treated as the year of search, as the documents were received by the AO much later. Consequently, the assessment framed under section 153B(1)/143(3) was declared void ab initio.

For assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, the appeals were partly allowed. For assessment year 2010-11, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue of share application money being remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.

For assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, the appeals were partly allowed. For assessment year 2010-11, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue of share application money being remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the reimbursement expenses during remand proceedings. The Tribunal also noted the rule of consistency as similar claims were allowed in preceding and succeeding years.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for passing the penalty order begins from the date the Departmental Representative receives the ITAT's order. Since the penalty order was passed after this limitation period expired, it was quashed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall if specific conditions were met.

The Tribunal held that the property tax challan for AY 2014-2015 was not incriminating material for the assessment years under appeal. Invoking Section 153A without such material was unjustified.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to pass a speaking order and had not independently adjudicated the grounds of appeal. The CIT(A) had summarily dismissed the assessee's contentions by relying on the Assessing Officer's observations without proper application of mind.

The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given one final opportunity to substantiate its case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is part of the compensation and is not taxable, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) and Hari Singh. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had claimed rental income and interest on housing loan on wrong facts, as the property was already purchased and fully paid for before the loan was disbursed. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had claimed rental income and interest on housing loan on wrong facts, as the property was already purchased and fully paid for before the loan was disbursed. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was justified.

The Tribunal held that the certificate in Form No. 26A, certifying that the amount was credited by Air India and included in its income, satisfied the conditions of the proviso to Section 201(1) and the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). Therefore, the disallowance was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that some of the comparables used by the TPO were not appropriate due to functional dissimilarity and differences in the segments considered. The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-evaluate the margins for certain comparables, considering only specific segments and making adjustments for free of cost supplies.

The Tribunal held that under Article 11(1) of the India-Cyprus DTAA, interest income is taxable only on a paid/received basis. Since no interest was actually received or accrued, the transfer pricing adjustment on hypothetical interest was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that a difference between the assessee's estimate and the AO's disallowance under Section 14A does not necessarily amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Merely making a claim that is not sustainable under law, without malafide intention, should not attract penalty.

The Tribunal held that the property tax challan for AY 2014-2015 was not incriminating material for the assessment years under appeal. Invoking Section 153A without such material was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the property tax challan for AY 2014-2015 was not incriminating material for the assessment years under appeal. Invoking Section 153A without such material was unjustified.