ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2020

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 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 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 held that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on the recharge coupons sold. Since the assessee failed to deduct TDS, the expenditure was not allowable under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on the recharge coupons sold. Since the assessee failed to deduct TDS, the expenditure was not allowable under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation on the re-heating furnace and pollution control equipment to the AO for fresh adjudication based on expert reports. It also directed the deletion of disallowances made under Section 40(a)(ia) for short TDS, following a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was illegal and bad in law. The AO failed to apply his mind independently to the information received and did not verify the facts before issuing the notice under Section 148.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was uncertain about the specific charge for levying penalty, as indicated by the varied wording in the assessment order, penalty notice, and penalty order. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was illegal and bad in law. The AO failed to apply his mind independently to the information received and did not verify the facts before issuing the notice under Section 148.

The Tribunal held that the advertisement expenditure is revenue in nature and fully allowable. It also found that the ALP determination by the TPO was not sustainable based on the facts and previous judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was not validly issued or served as it was sent to an incorrect address. Furthermore, the reassessment proceedings were initiated for the wrong assessment year, making the entire process invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of both additions. The AO's additions were not based on incriminating evidence found during the search, and the assessee provided explanations supported by bank statements for the second addition.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on machinery spares not put to use is not allowable, but allowed depreciation on actual consumption. Regarding Section 14A, it directed a reduced disallowance as Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that since the property sale transaction took place in assessment year 2002-03, making an addition in assessment year 2001-02 for cash consideration was not justified. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is to be treated as part of compensation and is not taxable as interest under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the nature of the interest received.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee had proved the commercial expediency of the expenditure, considering the financing, technical expertise, and brand name provided by the associated company.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion, without any tangible material coming into the possession of the AO after the original assessment. The CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment proceedings was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on machinery spares not put to use is not allowable, but allowed depreciation on actual consumption. Regarding Section 14A, it directed a reduced disallowance as Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is to be treated as part of compensation and is not taxable as interest under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the nature of the interest received.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on machinery spares not put to use is not allowable, but allowed depreciation on actual consumption. Regarding Section 14A, it directed a reduced disallowance as Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is to be treated as part of compensation and is not taxable as interest under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the nature of the interest received.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on machinery spares not put to use is not allowable, but allowed depreciation on actual consumption. Regarding Section 14A, it directed a reduced disallowance as Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 153A read with section 153C was invalid as the assessee was the person searched, and the proceedings should have been initiated solely under section 153A. The Tribunal also found no merit in the additions made for the subsequent assessment year, as the property sale transaction was completed in an earlier year and no books of accounts were maintained.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is to be treated as part of compensation and is not taxable as interest under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the nature of the interest received.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was able to explain the possession of jewellery received on ceremonial occasions, referencing CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and a Gujarat High Court judgment. The AO was directed to grant the benefit of this instruction to the assessee for jewellery held by his wife and sons.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of interest income after allowing 50% deduction, citing amended provisions of Section 56(2)(viii). It also confirmed the addition of cash deposits for failure to explain their source and rejected additional evidence filed at the appellate stage.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given ample opportunity to contest the matter before the revenue authorities. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on a technical ground without deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was uncertain about the specific charge for levying penalty, as indicated by the varied wording in the assessment order, penalty notice, and penalty order. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the cash deposit and the undisclosed long-term capital gains before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that since the assessments were concluded prior to the search, additions under Section 153A can only be made on the basis of incriminating material. As the Revenue failed to show any such material for the disputed additions, the deletions made by the CIT(A) were upheld.

The Tribunal held that a mistake in claiming set-off under the wrong head does not disentitle the assessee if the claim is otherwise allowable. The CIT(A) was directed to verify the claim from the electronic return and decide the issue.

The Tribunal held that since the assessments were concluded prior to the search, additions under Section 153A can only be made on the basis of incriminating material. As the Revenue failed to show any such material for the disputed additions, the deletions made by the CIT(A) were upheld.

The Tribunal restored the issue of unsecured loans to the AO for further examination due to suspicious bank transactions and lack of satisfactory evidence. The issues of director's remuneration and Section 14A disallowance were decided in favor of the assessee. The issue of unaccounted receipts was also restored to the AO for verification of a reconciliation statement.

The Tribunal noted that no proceedings can continue against the company during the moratorium period under the IBC Code. Therefore, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which is applicable to pending appeals, decided to dismiss the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to apply a 23% GP rate. This was based on the assessee's own stock valuation submitted to the bank and consistent acceptance of a similar GP rate in previous assessment years by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 153A read with section 153C was invalid as the assessee was the person searched, and the proceedings should have been initiated solely under section 153A. The Tribunal also found no merit in the additions made for the subsequent assessment year, as the property sale transaction was completed in an earlier year and no books of accounts were maintained.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was uncertain about the specific charge for levying penalty, as indicated by the varied wording in the assessment order, penalty notice, and penalty order. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits in a speaking order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was unable to prosecute the appeal as its name was struck off from the register of companies and the last directors were not aggrieved. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of the persons from whom share application money and premium were received.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without deciding on merits and without providing a reasoned order. The CIT(A) should have decided the appeals after hearing the parties and stating reasons for the decision.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest is required if the assessee has sufficient own funds to extend interest-free advances. Regarding Section 14A, the disallowance should be restricted to dividend-yielding investments.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without deciding on merits and without providing a reasoned order. The CIT(A) should have decided the appeals after hearing the parties and stating reasons for the decision.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest is required if the assessee has sufficient own funds to extend interest-free advances. Regarding Section 14A, the disallowance should be restricted to dividend-yielding investments.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest is required if the assessee has sufficient own funds to extend interest-free advances. Regarding Section 14A, the disallowance should be restricted to dividend-yielding investments.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest is required if the assessee has sufficient own funds to extend interest-free advances. Regarding Section 14A, the disallowance should be restricted to dividend-yielding investments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and without deciding on merits, as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), finding that the AO had not pointed out specific instances where bills and vouchers were not produced or verified. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) correctly observed that the assessee could not be put to negative onus regarding AIR mismatches.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the commission income as it was an agreed addition. For the interest income, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.