ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2020

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was ill-founded, considering the overwhelming evidence presented. The assessee opted for Section 44AD, which does not obligate the maintenance of books of account, and therefore, cannot be penalized for not doing so. The Tribunal found the confirmation of parties, their creditworthiness, bank statement entries, material purchase payments, and the place of execution of work to be sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the matter required further examination by the AO to determine if the assessee conducted independent research and development activities, distinct from the technology obtained from MMB. Both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO wrongly invoked provisions for rejection of books and estimation of profit. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had established the genuineness of sundry creditors and that cash deposits were explained by cash sales.

The Tribunal noted that the addition in the substantive case of M/s. Lal Sai Estates Pvt. Ltd. was deleted by a higher forum. Consequently, the assessee's appeal became infructuous.

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 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 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 Assessing Officer erred in invoking Section 50C without referring the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) when the assessee requested it. The Tribunal also noted that the applicability of Section 50C on tenanted properties requires careful consideration of market value.

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 notice under section 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional officer was invalid. Consequently, the assessment order passed without a valid notice within the prescribed limitation period was void ab initio.

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 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 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 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 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 ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on merits after considering the electronically filed appeal. The assessee was also directed to comply with the electronic filing requirements.

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 dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was primarily because the tax effect in each appeal was below the threshold limit set by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm additions for capital, unsecured loans, sundry creditors, commission, and expenses, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate these claims.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for invoking Rule 8D was absent and that the assessee's suo moto disallowance was reasonable. Therefore, no additional disallowance was warranted.

The Tribunal decided to remand several issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This included claims related to depreciation on goodwill, excise duty component in sales, and computation of book profits under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the principle of consistency should be followed as the rental income had been treated as business income for many years. Therefore, the income should be assessed under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business'.

The Tribunal held that the amount received as advance for land development, before the actual transfer of the capital asset, cannot be taxed as income from other sources. The taxability of capital gains, if any, would arise only in the year the transfer takes place.

The Tribunal held that the amount received as advance for land development, before the actual transfer of the capital asset, cannot be taxed as income from other sources. The taxability of capital gains, if any, would arise only in the year the transfer takes place.

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to represent the case. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the amount received as advance for land development, before the actual transfer of the capital asset, cannot be taxed as income from other sources. The taxability of capital gains, if any, would arise only in the year the transfer takes place.

The Tribunal held that the provision for bad and doubtful debts, even if termed 'Provision for NPA' and made in accordance with RBI guidelines, qualifies for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia). The legislative intent of encouraging rural advances was also considered.

The Tribunal found merit in condoning the small delay in filing the appeal. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing a hearing opportunity to the assessee.

The tribunal found no merit in the penalty levied for non-compliance. However, it restricted the penalty amount from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 10,000.

The Tribunal held that an addition made on a ground different from the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment is not sustainable. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that even if purchases are bogus, the entire amount cannot be added as income. A GP rate of 5% was deemed fit on alleged unaccounted purchases over the declared GP rate.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient own funds and no expenditure was disallowed by the assessee, the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be restricted to the actual exempt income earned. The disallowance was therefore restricted to Rs. 60,706.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income. The Tribunal also noted that even on merits, submitting an incorrect claim does not necessarily amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment.

The Tribunal held that since the entire addition made on account of rebate and discount was deleted, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable and therefore liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after reopening under Section 147/148, the assessment proceedings are invalid, even if the assessee participated. Section 292BB does not provide shelter to the revenue in such a case.

The Tribunal held that the managerial remuneration paid to the Managing Director was not for tax avoidance, as the Director had paid taxes on the amount received. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were initiated beyond the permissible six-year period from the date of satisfaction recording. Therefore, the assessment orders were deemed null and void.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the business of running a hotel, as evidenced by the agreement's clauses and the assessee's intention to continue the business. Therefore, the income derived was assessable under 'profits and gains of business'.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee had repaid the loan and deducted TDS on interest, the initial onus under Section 68 was not discharged. The matter was restored to the AO to issue notice to the director of the loan provider.

The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be allowed to the assessee if they provide primary evidence of deduction, even if the deductor failed to deposit it. The assessee cannot be made to suffer for the deductor's failure to deposit the tax.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in treating the entire Form 26AS amount as income and that the CIT(A) was also not entirely correct in confirming a 10% net profit rate. The Tribunal directed a re-computation of income at an 8% net profit rate.

The tribunal held that the name of the counsel for the appellant was incorrectly mentioned in the previous order. This corrigendum rectifies the counsel's name to Manoj Kumar, CA.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were initiated beyond the permissible six-year period from the date of satisfaction recording. Therefore, the assessment orders were deemed null and void.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings during the assessment. The penalty order was found to be suffering from infirmity due to this lack of satisfaction and was cancelled.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request and allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the AO's order. It found no error in the AO's decision regarding the taxability of income in India and the charging of interest under Section 234B, considering the assessee's acceptance of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the mandatory sanction from the Commissioner under Section 151 was not obtained. The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the Revenue for failing to produce the required record.

The tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the dividend income. It also held that foreign travel expenses incurred for business development should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and verified the share premium received by the assessee, as evidenced by the documents submitted and the fact that the assessment was selected for limited scrutiny for this purpose. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified.