ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2020

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of the cash method of accounting and subsequent disallowance of expenses were incorrect and lacked cogent reasons. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to properly examine the expenses and erred in his understanding of accounting principles.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the non-deduction of TDS in this case. It also noted that no order under section 201(1) was passed by the Assessing Officer, which is a ground for vacating the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 143(3) was invalid because it should have been framed under Section 153C, given the satisfaction note's date and the relevant assessment years. The disallowance on foreign travel expenses was also set aside as the primary assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid without the Assessing Officer recording proper satisfaction. Additionally, a notice under Section 274 is bad in law if it doesn't specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

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

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not maintain separate accounts for exempt income, estimation was necessary. It directed the AO to compute disallowance at 0.5% of average investment yielding exempt income, restricting it to the original disallowance amount.

The Tribunal held that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation should be treated as current year depreciation and allowed to be set off against income from house property and other sources.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share transaction despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal concluded that the transaction was bogus and a colourable device to convert unaccounted money into long-term capital gains.

The tribunal allowed the appeal regarding notional interest on overdue receivables, following a co-ordinate bench decision. The issue of TDS reconciliation was also decided in favor of the assessee. The car lease rental disallowance was remanded for verification.

The tribunal allowed the appeal regarding notional interest on overdue receivables, following a co-ordinate bench decision. The issue of TDS reconciliation was also decided in favor of the assessee. The car lease rental disallowance was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence without following proper procedure and without obtaining a remand report from the AO. Consequently, several issues were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as inadmissible. The assessee had filed a return of income and paid tax via TDS, making Section 249(4)(b) inapplicable. Crucial evidence regarding the property purchase being on behalf of a company was not considered.

The Tribunal noted that the section 263 proceedings had been quashed by a previous order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 did not survive.

The tribunal held that the penalty was not justified because the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the limb of Section 271(1)(c) that was violated. Additionally, the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was infirm as the inappropriate limb was not struck off.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by Dragon Fly LLC did not qualify as 'fees for technical services' under the India-USA DTAA. Furthermore, it was established that DTAA provisions, by virtue of Section 90(2), override Section 206AA when they are more beneficial to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Consequently, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. As all additions were set aside in the quantum appeal, the penalty proceedings arising from those additions could not be sustained.

The tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed time limit of six months from the end of the assessment year. Therefore, the assessment order was bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in re-characterizing the assessee's investment in equity shares of its subsidiary as a loan and charging notional interest. It also found that the disallowance under Section 14A and Section 36(1)(iii) were not sustainable based on the facts presented.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was also applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was also applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The tribunal dismissed the ground related to the agreed addition of Rs. 3,00,000/-, finding no merit in it. For the addition of Rs. 3,91,310/-, the tribunal directed the assessee to file confirmation and restricted the addition to the amount received during the year.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not furnish proper details at earlier stages and was unable to receive notices due to travel. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of additional evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on grounds related to the disallowance of additional payments and disallowance under Section 40A(3), following precedents from the Delhi High Court and coordinate benches. Grounds not pressed were dismissed.

The ITAT found that the previous appellate orders did not discuss whether the seized documents were incriminating. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the previous orders and restored the issues to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision.

The ITAT found that the previous appellate orders did not discuss whether the seized documents were incriminating. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the previous orders and restored the issues to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision.

The ITAT found that the previous appellate orders did not discuss whether the seized documents were incriminating. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the previous orders and restored the issues to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision.

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

The ITAT found that the previous appellate orders did not discuss whether the seized documents were incriminating. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the previous orders and restored the issues to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision.

The ITAT found that the lower appellate orders lacked discussion on whether the seized documents were incriminating. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the lower appellate orders and restored the issues to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision.

The ITAT found that the previous appellate orders did not discuss whether the seized documents were incriminating. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the previous orders and restored the issues to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision.

The ITAT found that the prior appellate orders lacked discussion on whether the seized documents were incriminating. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the previous appellate orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on this specific point.

The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances were identical to previous assessment years where the ITAT had ruled in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal decided the issues in favor of the assessee, respectfully following the prior orders.

The Tribunal rectified the previous order by correcting the assessment year from 2007-08 to 2008-09. All other aspects of the original order remain unchanged.