ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2019

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered additional evidence regarding the property sale. Both parties agreed to remand the matter to the AO for a fresh decision after considering this evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reversal of a provision, which was previously added back to income due to non-deduction of TDS, should be allowed as a deduction in the current year to avoid double taxation. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow this deduction after verification.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and source of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmations, bank statements, ITRs, and audited financial statements for both the assessee and the subscribing company, proving the source and source of the source. The addition made under Section 68 was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time from the date of receipt of certified copies of the orders. The Tribunal also found merit in the legal heir's identity and reversed the CIT(A)'s findings on these points.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was because the tax effect in each appeal was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT, and the Revenue did not press the appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was because the tax effect in each appeal was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT, and the Revenue did not press the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the reversal of a provision, which was previously added back to income due to non-deduction of TDS, should be allowed as a deduction in the current year to avoid double taxation. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow this deduction after verification.

The Tribunal held that the reversal of a provision, which was previously added back to income due to non-deduction of TDS, should be allowed as a deduction in the current year to avoid double taxation. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow this deduction after verification.

The Tribunal held that the reversal of a provision, which was previously added back to income due to non-deduction of TDS, should be allowed as a deduction in the current year to avoid double taxation. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow this deduction after verification.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit for appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Departmental Representative also did not press the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was because the tax effect in each appeal was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT, and the Revenue did not press the appeals.

The Tribunal held that while the application was initially rejected for procedural non-compliance, the assessee had subsequently filed it electronically. Therefore, the CIT(Exemption) was directed to accept the application and grant registration if otherwise in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's income, being from life insurance business, must be computed under Section 44 of the Act, which overrides other provisions. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was bad in law because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following precedents from the Karnataka High Court and the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings to be vitiated.

The Tribunal held that while the application was initially rejected for procedural non-compliance, the assessee had subsequently filed it electronically. Therefore, the CIT(Exemption) was directed to accept the application and grant registration if otherwise in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the reversal of a provision, which was previously added back to income due to non-deduction of TDS, should be allowed as a deduction in the current year to avoid double taxation. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow this deduction after verification.

The Tribunal, following its own prior decisions in identical cases, held that CSR expenses incurred prior to April 1, 2015, are allowable as revenue expenditure. The disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the reversal of a provision, which was previously added back to income due to non-deduction of TDS, should be allowed as a deduction in the current year to avoid double taxation. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow this deduction after verification.

The Tribunal held that the reversal of a provision, which was previously added back to income due to non-deduction of TDS, should be allowed as a deduction in the current year to avoid double taxation. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow this deduction after verification.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was absent during the hearing. The Revenue relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order on merits, providing detailed reasons for its decision. The Tribunal perused the materials on record and found no reason to deviate from the CIT(A)'s findings. Specifically, regarding the cash credits, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had noted that the bayana receipts did not contain complete details of the buyers, such as full addresses or PAN numbers, thus failing to establish the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the creditors as required under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) had sustained the addition of Rs. 61,75,000/- on this basis. Since no new material was presented to the Tribunal to persuade it to take a different view, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was dismissed, with a liberty granted to the assessee to approach the ITAT for restoration of the appeal under Proviso to Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, if applicable.

The Tribunal, after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and perusing the materials on record, found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed a speaking order with detailed reasons for the decision. The Tribunal noted that no material was brought before it to persuade it to take a view different from that of the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had sustained the addition of Rs. 20,51,000/- because the assessee failed to prove the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the cash credits, as required by Section 68. The bayana receipts did not contain complete addresses, thus failing to establish the identity of the creditors. Furthermore, not all bayana receipts were furnished. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the impugned appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the ITAT for restoration of the appeal under Proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, if approached within the stipulated time.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, acting as a power of attorney holder, failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the transfer of sale consideration to the original owner. Therefore, the issue of capital gains was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The additions for unexplained cash deposits and investment in property were confirmed as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time from the date of receipt of certified copies of the orders. The Tribunal also found merit in the legal heir's identity and reversed the CIT(A)'s findings on these points.

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

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was bad in law as it failed to specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the entire penalty proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on short-term export surplus deposits should be treated as 'Business income' for the purpose of Section 10A deduction. It also ruled that legal expenses and foreign turnover taxes are allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered additional evidence regarding the property sale. Both parties agreed to remand the matter to the AO for a fresh decision after considering this evidence.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced license fee was an accrued liability that arose in the year the demand was raised, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the reversal of a provision, which was previously added back to income due to non-deduction of TDS, should be allowed as a deduction in the current year to avoid double taxation. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow this deduction after verification.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to verify the factual position regarding the area of residential units for proportionate deduction under Section 80-IB and found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order on other grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to verify the factual position regarding the area of residential units for proportionate deduction under Section 80-IB and found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order on other grounds.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the Assessing Officer were duly served as per Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, and the assessee's claim of incorrect address was not tenable. The Tribunal also found that the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of funds from property sales was not substantiated and was separated in time from the deposit.

The Tribunal set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and to present its case with necessary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 was invalid due to a lack of requisite 'reason to believe' based on tangible material. The AO's decision to examine share capital did not constitute tangible material, especially since forfeited share application money from the same source was accepted as capital receipt in a subsequent assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to verify the factual position regarding the area of residential units for proportionate deduction under Section 80-IB and found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order on other grounds.

The Tribunal set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to verify the factual position regarding the area of residential units for proportionate deduction under Section 80-IB and found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order on other grounds.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which is applicable to pending appeals, dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lacs, and the Ld. DR could not point out any exceptions to the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that bank guarantee charges are not in the nature of commission or brokerage and therefore, tax is not deductible at source under Section 194H. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in the instant appeals was below Rs. 50 lakhs, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as it did not meet the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The Ld. DR could not provide any exceptions to this rule.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issues regarding the seized cash and jewellery. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for proper quantification and adjudication, ensuring principles of natural justice were followed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed. This was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals, as per CBDT Circulars.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not allowed the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence. Considering the facts and the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided that the issues required thorough examination and fresh adjudication at the Assessing Officer's level.