ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2020

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to genuine medical reasons. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice were followed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently followed its accounting policy and that the salary expenses were genuine and for business purposes. Since the AO had accepted the same treatment in a prior year, a different stand was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the non-commencement of activities at the stage of granting approval should not be a ground for rejection, especially since the trust had already purchased land and had registration under Section 12A/12AA. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to genuine medical reasons. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice were followed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by making an addition on an issue not covered by the initial notice. Furthermore, the goods landed and customs duty was paid in the relevant assessment year, making the expense attributable to that year.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of short and excess recoveries was not sustainable as it was a consistent practice of the assessee and allowed as deduction. Similarly, the disallowance of business promotion expenses was deleted as there was no basis or discrepancy pointed out by the revenue authorities.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's primary activities were charitable and that incidental income from letting out gallery space did not disqualify it from exemption. The Tribunal relied on its own prior decisions and High Court rulings in similar cases for the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit and that the CBDT circular was applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT correctly invoked Section 263 as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding the ownership of the land and agricultural produce. The assessment order was set aside and remitted for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition. The AO failed to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain discrepancies in the books of account before rejecting them and estimating profit at a higher rate. The Tribunal also noted that the fall in profit rate was justified by increased financial costs and raw material prices.

The Tribunal held that the interest income should be taxed on a receipt basis, aligning with the assessee's likely accounting method and judicial precedents. The Tribunal also found that the notices were properly served, as evidenced by the assessment records and the lack of counter-evidence from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The Revenue's counsel also conceded to this fact.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. This decision followed established judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of dividend income earned, following established judicial precedents. Regarding the payment to the associate concern, the Tribunal found that services were rendered and declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's failure to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loan creditors justified the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT correctly invoked Section 263 as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding the ownership of the land and agricultural produce. The assessment order was set aside and remitted for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A). However, as the appeal was not decided on merits, it was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity of hearing and failed to properly examine the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the AO rejected the books of account and estimated profits without proper justification or confronting the assessee with adverse evidence, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove the mandatory service of notice under Section 148. Consequently, the assessments framed under Section 144 were not sustainable and were quashed. The penalties levied were also deleted as a consequence.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove the mandatory service of notice under Section 148. Consequently, the assessments framed under Section 144 were not sustainable and were quashed. The penalties levied were also deleted as a consequence.

The ITAT noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals, applies retrospectively. The issue regarding interest under Section 201(1A) was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination in light of Section 192(3).

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals, applies retrospectively. The issue regarding interest under Section 201(1A) was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination in light of Section 192(3).

The Tribunal followed its decisions from previous assessment years where similar disallowances were directed to be deleted. It held that the expenditure cannot be disallowed unless not wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals, applies retrospectively. The issue regarding interest under Section 201(1A) was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination in light of Section 192(3).

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing the assessee to provide all relevant details and evidence to substantiate discrepancies in income, the nature and source of bank deposits, non-disclosure of interest income, and the claim for deduction under Section 54. The AO is to decide the issues after granting a final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals, applies retrospectively. The issue regarding interest under Section 201(1A) was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination in light of Section 192(3).

The Tribunal held that commission paid to directors for services rendered, based on sales turnover and approved by the Board, is allowable. It distinguished commission from dividend, noting dividend is a return on investment and paid equally to all shareholders.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors. The AO failed to conduct adequate investigation, and the assessee had even proved the source of the creditors' funds.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn since the issue had become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the adjustment for intra-group services, citing a Delhi High Court judgment. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions on account of interest on outstanding receivables.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion without any new material. The AO had not disposed of the assessee's objections properly, and the issues were already examined during the original assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the GP estimation, finding no infirmity. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deductions under Sections 80HH and 80I, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of manufacturing activity in a backward area.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the adjustment for intra-group services, citing a Delhi High Court judgment. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions on account of interest on outstanding receivables.

The Tribunal held that the AO rejected the books of account and estimated profits without proper justification or confronting the assessee with adverse evidence, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had violated Section 250(6) by not deciding the appeal on merits and providing reasons. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the foundation (the PCIT's revision order) for the assessment orders was removed by the Tribunal's earlier decision, the assessment orders themselves must fall. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this rule.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove the mandatory service of notice under Section 148. Consequently, the assessments framed under Section 144 were not sustainable and were quashed. The penalties levied were also deleted as a consequence.

The Tribunal held that since all the additions/disallowances on which the penalty was levied had been deleted in the quantum proceedings, no penalty was leviable. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including laboratory testing and consultancy, were in furtherance of its charitable objects and not 'trade', 'commerce', or 'business' with a profit motive. The dominant object of the assessee was charitable, and any fees received were incidental to these objects.

The Tribunal held that since the foundation (the PCIT's revision order) for the assessment orders was removed by the Tribunal's earlier decision, the assessment orders themselves must fall. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that since the assessee earned no exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was permissible. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the limitation period, rendering the assessment void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee company was engaged in the manufacture or production of an article or thing, a fact already settled by higher courts. Consequently, the revisionary orders under Section 263 were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case, finding no contrary decisions presented by the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case, finding no contrary decisions presented by the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee's tax auditor had confirmed no difference in profit before tax under both inclusive and exclusive methods of indirect tax valuation. The Tribunal also followed its own precedent on identical issues for prior assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessee company was engaged in the manufacture or production of an article or thing, a fact already settled by higher courts. Consequently, the revisionary orders under Section 263 were quashed.