ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, deleting some additions and remanding others for verification of double addition. The revenue's appeals were partly allowed, with some issues remanded and others allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving lower market rents and that past assessments had accepted the rental agreements. It also found that scholarships were not restricted to a particular religious community, and corpus donations are capital receipts not subject to tax.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, deleting some additions and remanding others for verification of double addition. The revenue's appeals were partly allowed, with some issues remanded and others allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, deleting some additions and remanding others for verification of double addition. The revenue's appeals were partly allowed, with some issues remanded and others allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular was also clarified to apply to all pending appeals.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, deleting some additions and remanding others for verification of double addition. The revenue's appeals were partly allowed, with some issues remanded and others allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground of appeal based on a previous year's CIT(A) order and a CBDT notification. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of this ground.

The tribunal noted that the appeals had become infructuous due to the resolution under MAP proceedings. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving lower market rents and that past assessments had accepted the rental agreements. It also found that scholarships were not restricted to a particular religious community, and corpus donations are capital receipts not subject to tax.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was not genuine as the buyer's explanation for cash payment was not convincing and the ownership documents of the land were also doubtful. The entire transaction was undertaken to disguise the actual nature of the receipt.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, deleting some additions and remanding others for verification of double addition. The revenue's appeals were partly allowed, with some issues remanded and others allowed for statistical purposes.