ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to adjudicate appeals on merits, even if the assessee is absent. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing the monetary limit for appeals applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of justice, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the assessment years in question, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search from the assessee's possession, no additions could be made. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court judgments in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla and Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia.

The ITAT held that the royalty and technical know-how payments made by the assessee were revenue in nature for the assessment year under consideration. The tribunal followed the decision of the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case for a subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied merely because an expenditure claim was not accepted by the revenue, especially when the assessee had made bonafide disclosures. The penalty sustained on donation expenses was deleted.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the assessment years in question, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search from the assessee's possession, no additions could be made. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court judgments in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla and Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia.

The Tribunal has issued a corrigendum to its earlier order to rectify factual inaccuracies concerning the addresses and PAN of the parties involved. The substantive content of the original order is confirmed to be unchanged.

The Tribunal has issued a corrigendum to its earlier order to rectify factual inaccuracies concerning the addresses and PAN of the parties involved. The substantive content of the original order is confirmed to be unchanged.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed in accordance with the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that since the addition made under Section 143(3) was already deleted by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, and the same addition was repeated under Section 153A, it would not interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice and order were bad in law as they did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was directed to be obliterated.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice and order were bad in law as they did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was directed to be obliterated.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of the substantive addition of Rs. 3,34,35,821/- by the CIT(A) was correct as the substantive addition was crystalised in the hands of the real owner. However, the Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,343/- as commission income in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that a substantial portion of the demand had already been recovered. Without commenting on the merits, the Tribunal decided to stay the remaining outstanding demand.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the CBDT's circulars setting monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s enhancement was erroneous as the assessee had clearly stated and provided evidence that she did not work or earn any salary in the USA after December 31, 2010. The enhancement was based on conjecture without any material support.

The Tribunal held that while the AO was correct in not accepting a revised computation due to the belated original return, the ITAT has the power to entertain such claims. The issue was restored to the AO for proper examination and verification of the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the Rs. 50 lakhs limit specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was deemed applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, holding that it would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in the interest of justice. Consequently, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Revenue and applies to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below Rs. 50 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the specified limit, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the specified limit, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the doctrine of merger applied, as the CIT(A)'s order in favor of the assessee had merged with the original assessment order. Therefore, the Pr. CIT could not invoke revisionary powers under Section 263.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order, finding it denied natural justice, and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of notional interest, stating there is no specific provision in the Act to tax such income. It also upheld the deletion of share application money as it pertained to a prior assessment year and had already been taxed.

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 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 lease charges paid for the use of assets without acquiring ownership rights are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. The Tribunal also noted the rule of consistency, as similar claims were allowed in preceding years.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to incorrect facts recorded in the reasons to believe and lack of independent application of mind by the AO. The Tribunal quashed the reopening and all consequential additions.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circulars specify monetary limits for filing departmental appeals. Since the tax effect was below the enhanced limit of Rs. 50 lakhs and did not fall under any exceptions, the Revenue did not press the appeal.

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 directed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to exclude certain comparables, specifically TCS E-Serve Limited and TCS E-Serve International Limited, from the list used to determine the arm's length price (ALP). This decision was based on the significant difference in the scale of operations and the impact of brand value.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. No exceptions were brought to the Tribunal's notice.

The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee was in the nature of an advance in the normal course of business, not a deemed dividend. The issue of unexplained bank entries was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

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 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 gains arising from the transfer of CCDs are in the nature of capital gains, not interest income. This decision was based on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's ruling in the assessee's own case.

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 Departmental appeal was not maintainable in view of CBDT Circulars which set monetary limits for filing appeals. The Assessee's cross-objection was permitted to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circulars which set monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal in view of these circulars.

The Tribunal held that lease charges paid for the use of assets without acquiring ownership rights are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. The Tribunal also noted the rule of consistency, as similar claims were allowed in preceding years.

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.