ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2019

The Tribunal held that payments made as reimbursement of expenses to non-residents were not taxable in India as they did not constitute income. It also found that certain consultancy and security services did not meet the 'make available' condition under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

The Tribunal restored both issues to the AO for fresh adjudication. For the share application money, the AO needs to consider recent Supreme Court and High Court decisions. For the unsecured loan, the AO must verify if it was for share application or loan and if it was repaid, applying relevant legal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular applies to pending appeals and that the appeal is not maintainable as the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Revenue and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the borrowed funds were indeed utilized for acquiring/constructing fixed assets, including CWIP. The Tribunal also noted that the method of accounting was consistent with prior years and accepted by the department in subsequent years.

The Tribunal held that payments made as reimbursement of expenses to non-residents were not taxable in India as they did not constitute income. It also found that certain consultancy and security services did not meet the 'make available' condition under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

The Tribunal held that payments made as reimbursement of expenses to non-residents were not taxable in India as they did not constitute income. It also found that certain consultancy and security services did not meet the 'make available' condition under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the assessee incurred expenditure to earn exempt income, which is a mandatory prerequisite for invoking Section 14A. Since no expenditure was found to be related to the exempt income, no disallowance could be made.

The Tribunal held that reimbursements of expenses incurred by the assessee were not taxable as income, as there was no element of profit involved. It also held that interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not chargeable where tax was deductible at source.

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

The Tribunal held that expense reimbursements were not taxable as income, as they were actual expenses incurred by the assessee without any mark-up. It also held that interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not chargeable where tax was deductible at source.

The Tribunal held that expense reimbursements were not taxable as income, as they were actual expenses incurred by the assessee without any mark-up. It also held that interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not chargeable where tax was deductible at source.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence, which was a contentious issue. Following the precedent set in similar cases of other family members, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient explanations for the discrepancies, and in most cases, the assessee's liability was less than what the creditors claimed. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the provision for copper concentrate purchase was an ascertained liability, estimated using a reliable method based on market prices, and had been consistently followed by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the new CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence, which was a contentious issue. Following the precedent set in similar cases of other family members, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that expense reimbursements were not taxable as income, as they were actual expenses incurred without any markup. It also held that interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not chargeable where tax was deductible at source.

The Tribunal held that reimbursements of expenses incurred by the assessee were not taxable as income, as there was no element of profit or markup. It also held that interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not chargeable where tax was deductible at source.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, citing sufficient cause for non-production before lower authorities due to the death of a key director. The Tribunal set aside the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient explanations for the discrepancies, and in most cases, the assessee's liability was less than what the creditors claimed. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was misconceived as it failed to challenge the CIT(A)'s finding that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not sustainable. Therefore, even if the Revenue succeeded on the merits of the addition, it would have no impact on the quashed assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of a duplicate addition of Rs. 4,35,000/- and an amount of Rs. 3,01,000/- which was duly explained as cash-in-hand. The remaining addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with law as the approval for reopening was given mechanically by the approving authorities without proper application of mind. Furthermore, the addition on account of client code modification was not justified, following the Bombay High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had paid the taxes and interest thereon before the due date for filing the return of income. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to immunity under Section 271AAA(2)(i) of the Act, and the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be preferred.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and this applied to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal with a low tax effect was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the applications solely on the grounds of lack of evidence of activities, especially since the trust was recently formed. The Tribunal stated that the genuineness of activities could be examined by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the applications solely on the grounds of lack of evidence of activities, especially since the trust was recently formed. The Tribunal stated that the genuineness of activities could be examined by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action of issuing notices under Section 153A was correct as a warrant was issued in the assessee's name. The assessee's original returns were accepted, and no prejudice was caused.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action of issuing notices under Section 153A was correct as a warrant was issued in the assessee's name. The assessee's original returns were accepted, and no prejudice was caused.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action of issuing notices under Section 153A was correct as a warrant was issued in the assessee's name. The assessee's original returns were accepted, and no prejudice was caused.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action of issuing notices under Section 153A was correct as a warrant was issued in the assessee's name. The assessee's original returns were accepted, and no prejudice was caused.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the reasons were identical to a previous assessment year where the reopening was found to be invalid. Consequently, the addition and enhancement made by the revenue authorities were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The learned DR could not provide any exceptions.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied was bad in law because the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, rendering it a non-application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal held that an ex parte disposal does not mean dismissal in limine. The CIT(A) should have examined the assessment records and the material furnished by the assessee before the AO.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections against the reopening notice was a violation of statutory duty. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to support the genuineness of the share transactions and the LTCG claim.

The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority's order was devoid of any reference to the evidence explaining the source of cash deposits. Therefore, the issue was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after examining the evidence and providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made ad hoc disallowances without proper consideration of evidence. It noted that similar expenses were allowed in preceding and succeeding years. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh. The CIT(A) was instructed to provide a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, holding that the tax effect involved in the disputed additions was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if the tax effect was higher or fell under exceptions.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, holding that the tax effect involved in the disputed additions was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if the tax effect was higher or fell under exceptions.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, holding that the tax effect involved in the disputed additions was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if the tax effect was higher or fell under exceptions.

The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding no incriminating documents and stating the disclosure was not based on calculations or seized papers. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, citing CBDT instructions.

The Tribunal found that the reassessment notice was for the purchase of property, but the addition was made on account of a surrender. The lower authorities failed to examine the documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of funds.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order on merits and no new material was presented to warrant a different view. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that a return filed under Section 139(4) is to be treated as filed within the prescribed period under Section 139(1) and (2) for the purpose of Explanation to Section 11(1). It also held that TDS can be allowed as application of income.