ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2020

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was a sham, designed to launder black money, and confirmed the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal relied on SEBI's findings of price manipulation and the assessee's lack of knowledge about the company and its business.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution despite adjournment requests. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that the invoice was already accounted for by M/s U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. and there was no evidence to suggest that the services were rendered by the assessee personally. Therefore, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not engaged in trade, commerce, or business, thus not falling under the proviso to Section 2(15). Furthermore, the unspent expenses were not claimed by the assessee, so they could not be disallowed and taxed as surplus.

The Tribunal found the DRP's order to be cryptic and lacking reasons for treating certain items as operating income. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the DRP for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was unabated at the time of search and no incriminating material was found, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was beyond the scope of Section 153A. The Tribunal also noted that the purchases were made through banking channels and the supplier had eventually provided confirmation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income. For the bad debts, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification, particularly regarding the recovery and taxability of one amount and the business loss nature of the other.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including replies to notices, ITRs, bank statements, and repayment details, establishing the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders and share applicants. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was unabated at the time of search and no incriminating material was found, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was beyond the scope of Section 153A. The Tribunal also noted that the purchases were made through banking channels and the supplier had eventually provided confirmation.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 151 was granted prior to the recording of reasons, which is illegal and against the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was unabated at the time of search and no incriminating material was found, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was beyond the scope of Section 153A. The Tribunal also noted that the purchases were made through banking channels and the supplier had eventually provided confirmation.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty could be confined to one capacity of representative assessee for all the years. Therefore, the penalty was confirmed for one set of appeals and deleted for the others.

The Tribunal held that sub-licensing income should be computed on a net basis after adjusting royalty paid, remanding the issue to the AO for proper bifurcation. It also ruled that excise duty refunds, being in the nature of a capital subsidy, are not liable to tax and should be excluded from book profit calculations.

The Tribunal held that sub-licensing income should be computed on a net basis after adjusting royalty paid, remanding the issue to the AO for proper bifurcation. It also ruled that excise duty refunds, being in the nature of a capital subsidy, are not liable to tax and should be excluded from book profit calculations.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption)'s observations were contrary to the materials on record and the initial paragraphs of the impugned order. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and directed a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that sub-licensing income should be computed on a net basis after adjusting royalty paid, remanding the issue to the AO for proper bifurcation. It also ruled that excise duty refunds, being in the nature of a capital subsidy, are not liable to tax and should be excluded from book profit calculations.

The Tribunal held that sub-licensing income should be computed on a net basis after adjusting royalty paid, remanding the issue to the AO for proper bifurcation. It also ruled that excise duty refunds, being in the nature of a capital subsidy, are not liable to tax and should be excluded from book profit calculations.

The Tribunal allowed deduction under section 80IA for inland container depots and rail systems, and depreciation on certain assets. However, the issue of advance lease rent was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the AO had not provided a reasonable opportunity to the assessee before imposing the penalty. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that sub-licensing income should be computed on a net basis after adjusting royalty paid, remanding the issue to the AO for proper bifurcation. It also ruled that excise duty refunds, being in the nature of a capital subsidy, are not liable to tax and should be excluded from book profit calculations.

The Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. Both issues, concerning Section 14A disallowance and prior period expenditure, were held to be covered by a previous ITAT order for AY 2009-2010.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption)'s observations were contrary to the materials on record and the initial paragraphs of the impugned order. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and directed a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that sub-licensing income should be computed on a net basis after adjusting royalty paid, remanding the issue to the AO for proper bifurcation. It also ruled that excise duty refunds, being in the nature of a capital subsidy, are not liable to tax and should be excluded from book profit calculations.

The Tribunal held that sub-licensing income should be computed on a net basis after adjusting royalty paid, remanding the issue to the AO for proper bifurcation. It also ruled that excise duty refunds, being in the nature of a capital subsidy, are not liable to tax and should be excluded from book profit calculations.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that incriminating documents were found during the search in the case of the Jain Group, which were used against the assessee. The proper course of action for the AO should have been to proceed against the assessee under Section 153C of the Act, not Section 147/148. The Tribunal distinguished the revenue's cited case, Mannat Hospitality P Limited, as it specifically noted that no material belonging to the assessee was found from the searched person's premises or handed over to the assessee's AO, which was not the case here. The Tribunal found that the AO did not apply his mind to the facts and circumstances and the material on record. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and quashed the reopening of the assessment. The additions made under Section 68 and for commission were consequently deleted. The Tribunal also noted that even on merits, the addition under Section 68 might not have been sustainable, as the investor company provided confirmations, bank statements, and balance sheets, which were not doubted by the authorities below, and the investor company had sufficient funds.

The Tribunal allowed deduction under section 80IA for inland container depots and rail systems, and depreciation on certain assets. However, the issue of advance lease rent was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal directed the inclusion of Kals Information Systems Ltd. as a valid comparable, finding that it satisfied all filters. It also ordered reconsideration of Infomile Technologies and Bells Software Ltd. as comparables, subject to further opportunity for the taxpayer. Furthermore, Infosys Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., and Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. were ordered to be excluded as comparables.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that no addition could be made under Section 153C proceedings without incriminating material related to the assessee being found during the search. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 cannot be invoked for outstanding sundry creditors when the assessee has provided account statements, confirmations, and made subsequent payments through banking channels. The addition was deemed unjustified as the assessee's trading results were not disturbed.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was bad as there was a deficiency in the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer regarding seized documents belonging to or relating to the assessee. For AY 2009-10, the assessment was also vitiated due to procedural lapses.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made based on statements not provided to the assessee, and the right to cross-examine was not granted. The AO also failed to clarify where substantive additions were made.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's application for condonation of delay due to lack of supporting evidence for the reasons cited. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as unadmitted.

The Tribunal noted that the facts and circumstances of the present appeal were identical to those in the cases of Sh. Karam Chand vs. ITO, Sh. Dharam Chand vs. ITO, Ms. Kaushalya Devi vs. ITO, and Ms. Maya Devi vs. ITO, decided by a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT, Delhi. In those identical cases, the co-ordinate bench had admitted additional evidence and set aside the disputed issues to the Assessing Officer (AO) for passing a fresh assessment order in light of the additional evidence and other materials on record. Both the assessee's counsel and the Departmental Representative agreed that the issues were covered by these precedents and consented to the admission of additional evidence and setting aside the matter to the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside all disputed issues to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law, considering the additional evidence and other materials on record. For statistical purposes, the appeal was partly allowed.