ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2019

The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and the lack of grounds of appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal found it difficult to adjudicate the appeal without the assessee's cooperation.

The Tribunal held that the issue of Section 80IA deduction for ICDs/CFS is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The issue of advance lease rent was set aside to the AO for verification. The Revenue's grounds were dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s order based on High Court and Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable. This was primarily because the addition was based on entries in books seized from a third party, without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine that party.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable. This was primarily because the addition was based on entries in books seized from a third party, without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine that party.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim regarding expenditure related to exempt income before invoking Rule 8D. Since the Assessing Officer did not record such dissatisfaction, the addition made under Rule 8D was deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matters to the AO for re-deciding the issues after verifying the facts. For the professional fees, the AO was directed to re-examine if any expenditure was claimed. For Section 14A, the AO was to verify if any expenditure was incurred for exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the TPO/DRP/AO in respect of AMP expenses was not sustainable. It also directed deletion of depreciation disallowance on assets converted to stock-in-trade and allowed depreciation at a higher rate for computer peripherals. The issue of bad debts and advances was remanded back to the DRP.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular and its subsequent clarification. The circular was binding on tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal restored the issue of allowability of expenses to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to examine the aspect of expenditure allowance based on cogent materials to be submitted by the assessee, following a previous decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 and allowed the appeal for AY 2011-12 for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2011-12 was also partly allowed. Specific directions were given regarding the examination of PF/ESI contributions and restoration of AO's order on employee contribution to PF.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits continuation of proceedings against the assessee. The appeals filed by the Assessee were also dismissed as they were not maintainable, with directors no longer authorized to pursue them.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits continuation of proceedings against the assessee. The appeals filed by the Assessee were also dismissed as they were not maintainable, with directors no longer authorized to pursue them.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits continuation of proceedings against the assessee. The appeals filed by the Assessee were also dismissed as they were not maintainable, with directors no longer authorized to pursue them.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits continuation of proceedings against the assessee. The appeals filed by the Assessee were also dismissed as they were not maintainable, with directors no longer authorized to pursue them.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits continuation of proceedings against the assessee. The appeals filed by the Assessee were also dismissed as they were not maintainable, with directors no longer authorized to pursue them.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits continuation of proceedings against the assessee. The appeals filed by the Assessee were also dismissed as they were not maintainable, with directors no longer authorized to pursue them.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits continuation of proceedings against the assessee. The appeals filed by the Assessee were also dismissed as they were not maintainable, with directors no longer authorized to pursue them.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits continuation of proceedings against the assessee. The appeals filed by the Assessee were also dismissed as they were not maintainable, with directors no longer authorized to pursue them.

The Tribunal restored the issue of allowability of expenses incurred to earn estimated income back to the Assessing Officer for examination based on cogent material. It also directed verification of a protective addition made in AY 2007-08.

The Tribunal held that if the addition on which the penalty was levied has been deleted in the quantum proceedings, then the penalty cannot stand. Consequently, the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the service of the assessment order by affixture was not proper as no attempts were made to serve it personally or by registered post, and the affixture report lacked witnesses. Therefore, the appeal was considered filed within the limitation period.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to non-service of mandatory notice under Section 143(2) and violation of principles of natural justice. The additions made under Section 68 were also found to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine whether the new loan was utilized for repayment of old loans used for property acquisition and construction.

The Tribunal restored the issue of allowability of expenses incurred to earn estimated income back to the Assessing Officer for examination based on cogent material. It also directed verification of a protective addition made in AY 2007-08.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 and allowed the appeal for AY 2011-12 for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2011-12 was also partly allowed. Specific directions were given regarding the examination of PF/ESI contributions and restoration of AO's order on employee contribution to PF.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order on merits with detailed reasons. In the absence of any material from the assessee to persuade a different view, the ITAT declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine whether the new loan was utilized for repayment of old loans used for property acquisition and construction.

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

The Tribunal held that the issue of Section 80IA deduction for ICDs/CFS is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The issue of advance lease rent was set aside to the AO for verification. The Revenue's grounds were dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s order based on High Court and Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, which was less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order on merits, providing detailed reasons for his decision. The Tribunal noted that no new material was brought on record by the assessee before the ITAT to persuade them to take a different view from that of the CIT(A). The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessee had failed to discharge its onus regarding the genuineness and creditworthiness of M/s Acer Foods Pvt. Ltd. The fact that the company and its directors could not be located at the given address, and the bank manager disowned the bank statement provided by the assessee, indicated that M/s Acer Foods Pvt. Ltd. was a shell company. Furthermore, the income tax return of M/s Acer Foods Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2013-14 did not demonstrate the creditworthiness to invest Rs. 7 crores in shares at a premium without justification. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 7 crores was upheld. The Tribunal explicitly clarified that the assessee could approach the ITAT for restoration of the appeal under Proviso to Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, if they chose to do so.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a reasoned decision after affording a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed funds is allowable if the borrowings are for business purposes and commercial expediency is established. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that the AO cannot invoke Rule 8D unless dissatisfied with the assessee's suo-moto disallowance.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal filed by the assessee was infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal restored the issue of allowability of expenses to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to examine the aspect of expenditure allowance based on cogent materials to be submitted by the assessee, following a previous decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentation and evidence regarding the investors. The AO's assessment was found to be general and not specific to the assessee's case.

The Tribunal held that since the land was consistently treated as an investment and the sale thereof resulted in capital gains, Section 44AB was not applicable. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271B was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing 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 upheld the deletion of additions for prior period expenses and interest under Section 36(1)(iii), and confirmed the disallowance under Section 14A in the absence of exempt income. The issue of obsolete stock was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision order was unsustainable. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on property investment, not cash credits, and the assessee had provided complete details to the AO, who had examined them.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 54 as the investment in the plot demonstrated a clear intention to construct a new residential house. The delay in possession due to external factors should not disentitle the assessee from the benefit.

The Tribunal held that expenditure on moulds, subject to wear and tear and frequent replacement for quality, is revenue expenditure. It also directed the AO to consider capacity utilization adjustments in transfer pricing, though it did not allow the assessee's specific grounds on this aspect.

The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court admitted the assessee's appeal on substantial questions of law, the issue was debatable. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the payment of annual lease rent, even if paid in a lump sum, is revenue expenditure as it is a recurring expense for business purposes and does not create a capital asset for the assessee. The assessee derives an enduring business advantage by using the premises at a lower rent.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT circular and its subsequent clarification. The dismissal was in limine, without considering the merits of the case.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the addition on merchant banking license transfer and directing deletion. It also allowed depreciation on UPS at 60% and restored issues regarding provision for expenses and depreciation on other assets to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT circulars. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by restoring the transfer pricing issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of AMP expenditure was not sustainable. It noted that the Bright Line Test (BLT) used by the TPO has been discarded by higher courts and that similar AMP expenses had been allowed in previous assessment years for the taxpayer. The Tribunal also found no evidence of violation of any law or code that would prohibit such expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of AMP expenditure was not sustainable. It noted that the Bright Line Test (BLT) used by the TPO has been discarded by higher courts and that similar AMP expenses had been allowed in previous assessment years for the taxpayer. The Tribunal also found no evidence of violation of any law or code that would prohibit such expenditure.