ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2020

The Tribunal held that audited books of account found during a search cannot be treated as incriminating material. Since the additions were solely based on the examination of these books and not on any other incriminating material unearthed during the search, the assessment under Section 153A was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that audited books of account found during a search cannot be treated as incriminating material. Since the additions were solely based on the examination of these books and not on any other incriminating material unearthed during the search, the assessment under Section 153A was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that audited books of account found during a search cannot be treated as incriminating material. Since the additions were solely based on the examination of these books and not on any other incriminating material unearthed during the search, the assessment under Section 153A was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs specified by the CBDT circular. The circular was also clarified to apply to all pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Revenue would not prefer appeals if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the enhanced limit, they were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Revenue would not prefer appeals if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the enhanced limit, they were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Revenue would not prefer appeals if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the enhanced limit, they were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's charitable objects remained unchanged and that its own case for a previous assessment year, which allowed carry-forward of losses, was applicable. Therefore, the denial of exemption by the AO was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Revenue would not prefer appeals if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the enhanced limit, they were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the Revenue's main appeals were dismissed, the assessee's cross objections and appeals, which were dependent on them, had become infructuous. Therefore, they were also dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee invoking Article 27 of the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) of the DTAA.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee invoking Article 27 of the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) of the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the appeals of the Revenue were to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT Circular and its subsequent clarification. The cross-objections filed by the assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the AO made additions on a presumptive basis without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to provide evidence. Therefore, the issues related to Sections 68 and 69 were remanded back to the AO for verification of evidence.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when there was full disclosure of material facts, the issue was debatable with two legitimate views, and the assessee adopted a view favorable to it. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding disallowance under Section 14A for lack of satisfaction by the AO. It also allowed the claim for expenditure incurred in raising loan funds, reversing the deferral treatment. Other grounds were dismissed or partly allowed based on earlier precedents.

The Tribunal held that the appeals of the Revenue were to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT Circular and its subsequent clarification. The cross-objections filed by the assessees were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For the commodity trading loss, the AO was directed to make independent inquiries from the broker. For the capital loss, the AO was directed to examine the valuation report in line with Rule 11UA.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee invoking Article 27 of the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) of the DTAA.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's request. This was due to the assessee invoking the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

The Tribunal held that since the Revenue's main appeals were dismissed, the assessee's cross objections and appeals, which were dependent on them, had become infructuous. Therefore, they were also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the seized document was a loose sheet with rough jottings, not found from the assessee's premises or an authorized person. Furthermore, the buyer denied making any such payment, and the addition made in her hands was also deleted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the 20% profit rate to be high and reduced it to 12% of the cash deposits, considering the nature of the assessee's business.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C, which creates a deeming fiction for sale consideration, cannot be extended to Section 54F for calculating exemption. The exemption under Section 54F should be based on actual sale consideration, not the value determined under Section 50C.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue afresh after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee incurred no expenditure for exempt income, had sufficient own funds for investments, and no interest was paid on borrowed funds, the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A was not justified. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal decided that the issue regarding the disallowance of expenses for Section 10A calculation should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. The levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C on book profit was deleted, following previous tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal directed the TPO to compute the Transfer Pricing Adjustment for receivables from AE on payments delayed beyond 90 days, applying the LIBOR rate. The issue of interest on loans to AE was not adjudicated.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that complete disallowance of expenses was not justified. It directed ad-hoc disallowances for business promotion, car expenses, and telephone expenses, and restored the building repair issue to the AO for fresh consideration with an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal, following its own order for the preceding assessment year, remanded the appeal back to the Assessing Officer. All issues, including the claim for exemption under Section 11 to 13, were to be decided afresh after providing the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without a decision on merits. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that no separate Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest on receivables can be made when a working capital adjustment has already been provided. This follows the precedent set in the assessee's own case for the previous assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the Fixed Asset Register and subsequent year's assessment order, where depreciation was allowed on the written-down value of these assets, supported the assessee's claim. The disallowance was based solely on an invoice notation and lacked further corroboration.

The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 263, which formed the basis for the assessment order, was quashed, the assessment order itself does not survive and is infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not claim any deduction for the sum in question, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was unwarranted. The Tribunal noted that a similar addition had been deleted in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year in earlier proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the claim of deductions under sections 80IB and 80G was not inadvertent but a deliberate attempt to furnish inaccurate particulars of income, attracting penalty. However, penalty for non-deduction of TDS on legal and professional expenses was deleted due to full disclosure.

The Tribunal upheld the addition for cash purchases as the assessee failed to prove business exigency and the CIT(A)'s order was found to be without infirmity. The issue of TDS on interest was restored to the AO for one opportunity to prove compliance with Section 201(1A). The addition for weight and rate difference was also upheld due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The ITAT held that the levy of fees under Section 234E, as processed under Section 200A, was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015. Since the statement was filed before this date, the demand for late filing fees was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to incorrect service of notice, the matter should be decided afresh. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had made a huge enhancement without allowing any expenses, which was unfathomable for an educational institution registered under Section 12A.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 153C and 153A was void ab initio due to the non-issuance of the mandatory notice under Section 153C. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not engaged in commercial activities that would disqualify it from exemption under Section 2(15). It also noted that certain expenses treated as surplus by the AO were not claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was concluded before the search and no incriminating material was found, the additions made were unjustified. The assessment order passed under section 153C was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153A was void ab initio due to the lack of mandatory prior approval from the Joint Commissioner as required by Section 153D of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment order and all additions made were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A for AY 2011-12, following a previous decision. However, it deleted additions related to lease rent for both years, citing High Court and Tribunal precedents. Disallowances for membership fees were also deleted. For AY 2012-13, a disallowance under Section 14A for book profit was deleted, but a provision for leave travel assistance was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was invalid as it should have been passed under Section 153C. The date of recording satisfaction for initiating Section 153C proceedings was considered the effective date of search for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was invalid because it should have been passed under Section 153C, as the assessee was not the searched person. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to share application money, finding the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of trade creditor disallowances, noting the AO's selective verification and acceptance of transactions in subsequent years.