ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2019

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for all three assessment years for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals for two assessment years were also partly allowed, while one was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for all three assessment years for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals for two assessment years were also partly allowed, while one was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted thorough enquiries and verified the share premium issue. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction was based on an erroneous understanding of the facts.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, allowing the assessee's appeal on that ground. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal for the same year was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conclusively prove the sham nature of transactions and backdating without proper audits.

The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, allowing the assessee's appeal on that ground. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal for the same year was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conclusively prove the sham nature of transactions and backdating without proper audits.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as per the revised monetary limits set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted thorough enquiries and verified the share premium issue. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction was based on an erroneous understanding of the facts.

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

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the delay in getting the accounts audited was due to a change in the statutory auditors, which constituted a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, allowing the assessee's appeal on that ground. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal for the same year was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conclusively prove the sham nature of transactions and backdating without proper audits.

The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, allowing the assessee's appeal on that ground. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal for the same year was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conclusively prove the sham nature of transactions and backdating without proper audits.

The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, allowing the assessee's appeal on that ground. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal for the same year was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conclusively prove the sham nature of transactions and backdating without proper audits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention regarding nil average investment needed verification. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance after verifying the opening and closing values of exempted investments.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,48,51,840/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed sales, as the Forest Department's report confirmed the stock was destroyed and had nil value. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the contract was extended and subsequently cancelled due to market conditions, with RBI approval for the payment. Therefore, the washout charges were allowed as a deductible expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption was based on a technical error in filing the return form, not on substantive grounds. Since the assessee met the requirements for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad), the exemption should be allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 17,63,065/- as bogus purchases. It found that the assessee failed to provide plausible explanations and evidence for the transactions, and the lower authorities' reliance on surrounding circumstances and human probabilities was justified.

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

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,48,51,840/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed sales, as the Forest Department's report confirmed the stock was destroyed and had nil value. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,48,51,840/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed sales, as the Forest Department's report confirmed the stock was destroyed and had nil value. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for all three assessment years for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals for two assessment years were also partly allowed, while one was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as per the revised monetary limits for filing appeals set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,48,51,840/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed sales, as the Forest Department's report confirmed the stock was destroyed and had nil value. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal noted that the difference between the assessee's valuation and the VO's valuation was less than 5%. Considering the documentary evidence and case laws, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the valuation difference was negligible.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to sundry creditors and security deposits was justified based on evidence and remand reports. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue of commission and brokerage expenses back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no illegality in deleting the additions. It ruled that the sale of shares to subsidiary companies was exempt under Section 47(iv) and that the other expenses were either substantiated or voluntarily disallowed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that additional depreciation is allowable only for new plant and machinery acquired and installed, not for replacements or repairs of existing machinery. The assessee's claim for additional depreciation on items considered as repairs and maintenance was therefore rejected.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, applies to all pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable.

The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, allowing the assessee's appeal on that ground. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal for the same year was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conclusively prove the sham nature of transactions and backdating without proper audits.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of foreign travel expenses as the assessee failed to prove it was exclusively for business purposes. Regarding medical expenses, the Tribunal held that it was offered as a perquisite to the director as per a company resolution, not as a business expense.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for all three assessment years for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals for two assessment years were also partly allowed, while one was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to sundry creditors and security deposits was justified based on evidence and remand reports. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue of commission and brokerage expenses back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.