ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that the AO was not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A was prospective. Furthermore, the intimation under Section 154 was issued without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition. The Tribunal agreed that the amount could not be taxed as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company as it was not a shareholder of the lending company. The CIT(A) had directed that the amount should be taxed in the hands of the individual shareholders.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's investment in Duncan Industries Ltd., which had similar objects, constituted commencement of business. The Tribunal found that the investment was part of a BIFR-approved scheme for the revival of Duncan Industries, indicating that business activities were underway.

The Tribunal noted a difference in how turnover was recorded in the service tax return (based on services provided and paid for) versus the books of accounts (based on accrued income). It also considered that credit notes might not have been reflected in the service tax return.

The Tribunal held that interest payable on EDC charges is not penal in nature, following precedent. It also held that since the project was sold in earlier years, the interest on outstanding EDC charges cannot form part of work-in-progress and is revenue in nature.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding the nature of the land and its distance from the city. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to argue their appeal. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should be examined in light of the retrospective and curative nature of the second proviso, which allows deduction if the recipient has offered income. The matter of interest on late TDS payment was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs and applied to pending appeals.

The Tribunal found the AO's 12% net profit rate excessive given the assessee's past and future profit margins, directing it to be reduced to 8%. The additions for un-reconciled Form 26AS entries were maintained as unexplained credits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of transfer pricing adjustments. For Section 14A, the disallowance for AY 2008-09 was dismissed, and for AY 2009-10, it was restricted to the actual exempt income. The issue of club membership expenses was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of transfer pricing adjustments. For Section 14A, the disallowance for AY 2008-09 was dismissed, and for AY 2009-10, it was restricted to the actual exempt income. The issue of club membership expenses was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of transfer pricing adjustments. For Section 14A, the disallowance for AY 2008-09 was dismissed, and for AY 2009-10, it was restricted to the actual exempt income. The issue of club membership expenses was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of bad debts without appreciating that the loan advance was not in the ordinary course of business and that additional evidence was accepted without giving the AO a reasonable opportunity to rebut it. The Tribunal also noted that the reliance on the S.A. Builders case was misplaced as the issue was bad debts, not expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of transfer pricing adjustments. For Section 14A, the disallowance for AY 2008-09 was dismissed, and for AY 2009-10, it was restricted to the actual exempt income. The issue of club membership expenses was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the expenditure on repairs and maintenance was revenue in nature as no new asset was created. It also confirmed that the excise duty refund was a capital receipt, as it was granted for the development of industries and employment generation, aligning with the purpose test laid down by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Revenue would not prefer appeals before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to the significant delay and lack of evidence to support the assessee's claim of health issues. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no merit in the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds from partner's capital and accumulated profits to cover the advances. Therefore, no disallowance of interest was permissible.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits with reasons, even in the absence of the assessee, as per Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Dismissing for non-prosecution without considering merits was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid and bad in law because the AO recorded incorrect reasons for reopening and made an addition on a ground different from the one that formed the basis for reopening.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The appeal was dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no violation of natural justice as the assessee was given sufficient opportunities. The assessee failed to provide necessary information regarding the genuineness of transactions, assets, and expenses before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was invalid because the notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity rendered the notice and subsequent penalty order void.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without considering the evidence and giving the assessees a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 50 lakhs. The case did not fall within any of the exceptions.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the amended CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs and the present case did not fall within the exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and a moratorium was in effect under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Following the previous decision and the IBC provisions, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no violation of natural justice as the assessee was given sufficient opportunities. The assessee failed to provide necessary information regarding the genuineness of transactions, assets, and expenses before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no violation of natural justice as the assessee was given sufficient opportunities. The assessee failed to provide necessary information regarding the genuineness of transactions, assets, and expenses before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no violation of natural justice as the assessee was given sufficient opportunities. The assessee failed to provide necessary information regarding the genuineness of transactions, assets, and expenses before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the discrepancy appeared to be a bonafide clerical mistake, and since the AO accepted the returned income, there was no loss to the revenue. Therefore, it was not a case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the cost certificates provided by the assessee were insufficient to establish the arm's length price of transferred goods. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s adjustments regarding the allocation of expenses and depreciation.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to exclude certain comparable companies based on functional dissimilarity and export filter criteria. It also agreed with the DRP's direction to include ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. as a comparable, noting the profit margin was within the tolerance band.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed without sufficient opportunity and consideration of evidence. The Tribunal set aside the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the new documentary evidence and providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Senior Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to exclude certain comparable companies based on functional dissimilarity and export filter criteria. It also agreed with the DRP's direction to include ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. as a comparable, noting the profit margin was within the tolerance band.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without considering the evidence and giving the assessees a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The appeal was dismissed in limine without going into the merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to an ex-parte order. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of shares by the assessee companies was an investment and not a business transaction that generated income. The premium paid by the foreign investor did not constitute a benefit or perquisite in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed contrary to the principles of natural justice by not affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was because the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the ITAT.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction for the share capital received. The provided evidence, including tax return acknowledgments, did not demonstrate sufficient funds for the investment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which partly allowed the appeal by directing the AO to compute capital gains after deducting the cost of acquisition. However, the deduction under Section 54 for investment in a plot was denied as no house was constructed.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of notional rent for properties under construction or not ready for use was baseless and directed its deletion. However, the issue regarding the addition for undervaluation of closing stock was not explicitly decided in the provided excerpt, but the final order states the appeal is allowed.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of shares by the assessee companies was an investment and not a business transaction that generated income. The premium paid by the foreign investor did not constitute a benefit or perquisite in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reasoning for addition was flawed as it did not follow the prescribed valuation methods under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) and Rule 11UA. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, noting the shares had a negative fair market value due to company losses.

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 75,00,000/- received by the assessee was explained as it was part of a settlement amount due to the assessee's sister concern from M/s. High Ground Enterprises, as confirmed by a High Court judgment and bank statements. The addition of Rs. 21,04,667/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) was remanded for verification of payee's tax compliance.