ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2020

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) must decide appeals after hearing parties and providing reasons, and cannot dismiss for non-prosecution without considering merits. The ex-parte order suffered from infirmity as it lacked reasoning and proper opportunity.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss should not be allocated to profits eligible for deduction under Section 80IC. It also ruled that Head Office expenses cannot be apportioned to the eligible unit for Section 80IC deduction, and forward contract gains for hedging are business income, not speculative income.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal ex-parte without proper adjudication is an infirmity.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding communication gaps and granted a final opportunity to substantiate the agricultural income. The penalty was deleted considering the assessee's illness and the peculiar facts.

The Tribunal held that stamp duty charges are part of the sale consideration, entitling the assessee to claim interest on the full loan amount used for the property. It also held that the cash deposit was explained by a prior withdrawal for stamp duty, which was later re-deposited.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were not sustainable because the show cause notice issued by the AO was vague and ambiguous, failing to specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being imposed. The AO had not applied his mind to the specific charge.

The Tribunal recalled the earlier order and then dismissed the Revenue's appeals. This was done because the tax effect in the appeals was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

The Tribunal recalled the earlier order and then dismissed the Revenue's appeals. This was done because the tax effect in the appeals was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance, finding that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments in tax-free securities. The facts were identical to previous years where similar disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal noted that its earlier appeal against the quantum addition had been dismissed due to low tax effect, making the CIT(A)'s order on quantum additions final. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance on hotel expenses for the dealer conference, finding that Service Tax was not applicable during the assessment year. However, it upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s 20% disallowance on Diwali and celebration expenses, considering them not directly linked to business and lacking detailed substantiation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the auditor's certificate rectifying the error in the audited accounts. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte and without a reasoned order, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals by deleting disallowances on gifts and sundry creditors, and directed correction of carried forward losses and MAT credit. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on several counts.

The Tribunal held that the addition solely based on the non-response of a few vendors to Section 133(6) notices is incorrect, especially when the expenditure was not found to be non-genuine. The assessee had provided alternative evidence, and the non-response of vendors, including a government organization like Doordarshan, should not penalize the assessee.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and did not decide the appeal on merits with proper reasoning. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be infirm.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions, as the assessments were concluded and no incriminating material was found during the search. The decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla was followed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals by deleting disallowances on gifts and sundry creditors, and directed correction of carried forward losses and MAT credit. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on several counts.

The ITAT set aside the disallowance of repair and maintenance expenses to the AO for fresh adjudication due to lack of bifurcation. The ITAT allowed the appeal regarding administrative expenses, finding the disallowance to be ad hoc and noting the assessee's own disallowance for let-out properties.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte and without a reasoned order, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained by the AO under Section 153D was invalid as it appeared to be ante-dated and granted without proper application of mind. Consequently, the entire assessment order was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(iii) should be restricted to the average value of investments that yielded exempt income during the year. This decision followed a previous ruling in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals after hearing parties and providing reasons, and cannot dismiss for non-prosecution without considering merits. The ex-parte order by the CIT(A) suffered from infirmity due to lack of proper hearing and reasoning.

The Tribunal restored the issue of treating short-term capital gains as business income back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The ground related to the disallowance of fees for increasing share capital was dismissed due to lack of argument from the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer. This was due to the lack of final orders from the Settlement Commission regarding the parties who admitted the income and potential procedural issues in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on deferred income, agreeing that revenue recognition should align with expenditure and that the assessee followed a consistent accounting method. The Tribunal also affirmed the CIT(A)'s direction regarding TDS credit on the deferred portion.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals by deleting disallowances on gifts and sundry creditors, and directed correction of carried forward losses and MAT credit. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on several counts.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce quantitative details for raw material consumption and closing stock. While acknowledging the deficiencies, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt a 4% GP rate to meet the ends of justice, thereby recomputing the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that no appeal is provided against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner under section 264 of the Act. The aggrieved party can only approach the High Court, not the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal against the dismissal of the rectification application is without merit.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals by deleting disallowances on gifts and sundry creditors, and directed correction of carried forward losses and MAT credit. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on several counts.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since the Revenue failed to produce any such material, the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) order suffers from infirmity as it was passed ex-parte without allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and without providing reasoned decision on merits. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record specific satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The absence of a clear show cause notice on these specific grounds vitiates the penalty.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing and did not pass a reasoned order, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing and did not pass a reasoned order, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing and did not pass a reasoned order, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since the Revenue failed to produce any such material, the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the penalty levied was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had conducted thorough inquiries. The CIT's order was set aside because the CIT did not conduct independent inquiries to establish the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by passing ex-parte orders without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing and without providing reasoned decisions. The tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since the Revenue failed to produce any such material, the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since the Revenue failed to produce any such material, the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of transfer pricing adjustment to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh adjudication. The adjustment should be confined only to international transactions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing and without providing reasoned decisions. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions, as the assessments were concluded and no incriminating material was found during the search. The decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla was followed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals after hearing parties and providing reasons, and cannot dismiss for non-prosecution without considering merits. The ex-parte order by the CIT(A) suffered from infirmity due to lack of proper hearing and reasoning.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss should not be allocated to profits eligible for deduction under Section 80IC. It also ruled that Head Office expenses cannot be apportioned to the eligible unit for Section 80IC deduction, and forward contract gains for hedging are business income, not speculative income.