ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, continuation of pending suits is barred. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with until the insolvency proceedings concluded.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, continuation of pending suits is barred. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with until the insolvency proceedings concluded.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular No. 17/2019, which sets monetary limits for appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, continuation of pending suits is barred. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with until the insolvency proceedings concluded.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee and the Revenue's representative that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, continuation of pending suits is barred. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with until the insolvency proceedings concluded.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order, which restricted the addition to Rs. 25,55,438/- based on the AO's admission that only 37 creditors could not be verified.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, continuation of pending suits is barred. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with until the insolvency proceedings concluded.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a moratorium was declared, barring the continuation of pending suits. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with until the insolvency proceedings concluded.

The Tribunal held that framing an assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity is a jurisdictional defect, not a procedural one. Therefore, the order passed in the name of the non-existing company is void ab initio.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to decide afresh in light of the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09, as the CIT(A) order was passed before the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, continuation of pending suits is barred. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with until the insolvency proceedings concluded.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee is directed to appear without adjournment and substantiate its claims.

The Tribunal held that framing an assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity is a jurisdictional defect, not a procedural one. Therefore, the order passed in the name of the non-existing company is void ab initio.

The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. This circular makes the monetary limit applicable to all pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that AMP expenses in relation to outbound tourist services did not constitute an international transaction, following its own prior decisions. It also deleted disallowances for overseas representation fees and reimbursements, finding they were not 'fee for technical services'. However, it confirmed disallowance on AMP expenses for computer software and remanded the issue of membership and subscription charges for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that framing an assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity is a jurisdictional defect, not a procedural one. Therefore, the order passed in the name of the non-existing company is void ab initio.

The Tribunal, in light of the CBDT Circular No.17/2019, dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The cross objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, continuation of pending suits is barred. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with until the insolvency proceedings concluded.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed because the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act. This failure renders the assessment order null and void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove that the Rs. 50,00,000/- was paid for business purposes or for land purchase, and also failed to meet the conditions for bad debt deduction. Regarding earth filling expenses, the assessee provided no evidence to justify the claim beyond the Rs. 50,000/- relief already granted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable in nature, aligning with the CIT(A)'s findings and established legal precedents. It also upheld the decision that advance receipts for ongoing research projects, when accounted for as liabilities, are not immediately taxable income.

The Tribunal found the present case to be similar to the previous adjudication. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and confronting them with relevant documents.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. This was based on the assessee's undertaking to produce Sh. Sanjay Chakravarty and Sh. Deepak Miglani with documentary evidence to prove the source of funds.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the Revenue's appeal ex-parte after hearing the DR. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous because the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found the present case to be similar to the previous adjudication. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and confronting them with relevant documents.

The Tribunal found the present case to be similar to the previous adjudication. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and confronting them with relevant documents.

The Tribunal held that a deduction under Section 54, if otherwise admissible, cannot be denied solely because it was not claimed in the original return. It also found that the purchase of the new property related back to the date of the agreement to sell, which was within the stipulated period for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing the monetary limit for filing appeals is retrospective and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal with a tax effect below the revised limit is liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, the enhanced monetary limit for departmental appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on the CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that bank guarantee commission does not fall under Section 194H as there is no principal-agent relationship between the bank and the assessee. It also noted that such commission partakes the character of interest under Section 2(28A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects of educating and training registered valuers and promoting the profession constitute charitable activities for the general public. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of its activities and that similar organizations had been granted registration.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was also applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal considered the request of the assessee's counsel and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-representation before the CIT(A) due to the incorrect address. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside, and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-representation before the CIT(A) due to the incorrect address. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside, and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-representation before the CIT(A) due to the incorrect address. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside, and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was concluded before the search and no notice under Section 143(2) was issued within the due date, additions under Section 153A could only be made based on seized material. In the absence of such material, the assessment was bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the delay of less than one month was not intentional and the assessee should not be deprived of substantial justice. The Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the treatment of capital gains by crediting it to the capital reserve account instead of the Profit and Loss account is a debatable issue. Since the assessee disclosed the gain and it was a difference of opinion on accounting treatment, penalty cannot be levied.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A). It found that the AO's dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim of no expenses was justified, and the AO correctly followed the computation mechanism prescribed under Rule 8D.

The Tribunal held that merely making an accounting entry does not change the substance of the transaction where corpus fund was utilized for purchasing capital assets. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s finding on this matter was upheld.

The Tribunal found the present case to be similar to the previous adjudication. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and confronting them with relevant documents.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the AO were vague as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following precedents, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable due to non-application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the consideration received for the sale of software was not royalty. It distinguished between the sale of a copyrighted article and the transfer of rights in a copyright, stating that a non-exclusive license to use software does not amount to the use of copyright.

The Tribunal decided that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed as non-maintainable due to the tax effect being below the enhanced monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. The Department can file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect is found to be higher.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. As the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It ruled that the activities were incidental to the main charitable purpose and that depreciation is allowable for charitable institutions.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing the monetary limit for filing appeals is retrospective and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal, with a tax effect below the revised threshold, was dismissed.