ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2020

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to produce the directors of the share applicant companies. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the issues were set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) should have verified his doubts regarding the genuineness of the activities instead of outright rejecting the application. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that rental income should be taxed under 'income from house property' with statutory deductions, while maintenance income should be taxed under 'income from other sources' after deducting actual maintenance expenses. The loss from maintenance was disallowed.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 is applicable to cash credits and not to book entries representing sales or purchases where no actual money is received. The AO erred in invoking Section 68 for transactions that were already declared in the profit and loss account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of facts and to provide the assessee an opportunity for a hearing.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits from professional receipts and opening cash balance were already accounted for as income and thus constituted double addition. However, the source of Rs. 3 lakhs received from a partnership firm required further verification.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits from professional receipts and opening cash balance were already accounted for as income and thus constituted double addition. However, the source of Rs. 3 lakhs received from a partnership firm required further verification.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine because the authorization of the signatory to verify the return of income was not sufficiently established. The assessee was granted liberty to refile with proper authorization.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had clearly refused the offer of commission, no income had accrued to him. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer based solely on the offer document was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the matter of transfer pricing additions needs to be remanded back to the TPO for fresh examination, considering the taxpayer's evidence and relevant judicial precedents. Regarding depreciation on goodwill, the issue was remitted to the AO to decide afresh based on the revised return and the principle of consistency.

The Tribunal held that the 'bright line' approach for determining AMP expenses as an international transaction is not sustainable in law, following previous High Court and Tribunal rulings. The Revenue failed to provide material to prove a separate international transaction for AMP expenses.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the benchmarking on account of AMP expenses. Consequently, the grounds related to AMP adjustments were not pressed by the assessee and were considered academic.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. However, it admitted additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) and found it necessary to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication, considering the additional evidence and principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the benchmarking on account of AMP expenses. Consequently, the grounds related to AMP adjustments were not pressed by the assessee and were considered academic.

The Tribunal held that the rental income collected by the assessee was its income, and the remittance to the Government was its expense. Therefore, TDS deducted by tenants on this rental income should be granted as credit to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to annul the assessment order. It agreed that the assessment was defective in law due to the absence of a mandatory Section 143(2) notice, especially when a return was filed in response to a Section 148 notice. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s elaborate findings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to annul the assessment order. It agreed that the assessment was defective in law due to the absence of a mandatory Section 143(2) notice, especially when a return was filed in response to a Section 148 notice. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s elaborate findings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the assessee had disclosed complete details and there was no concealment of income. Furthermore, the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the assessee had disclosed complete details and there was no concealment of income. Furthermore, the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated.

The Tribunal held that the loss of stock due to fire is a revenue loss incurred during the year and should be allowed as a deduction. The fact that the stock was insured does not negate the incurred loss, and any subsequent reimbursement from the insurance company would be taxable income.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) is not applicable if the expenditure is not debited to the profit and loss account and is merely a reimbursement. Following its own coordinate benches' decisions, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow proportionate interest deduction for property acquisition and to restrict Section 14A disallowances to the extent of exempt income, following previous year's orders.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 56/2012, which clarified that no TDS is required on bank guarantee commission, should be treated as retrospective to reduce assessee hardship. Therefore, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) can be made for non-deduction of TDS on such payments.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the benchmarking on account of AMP expenses. Consequently, the grounds related to AMP adjustments were not pressed by the assessee and were considered academic.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 56/2012, which clarified that no TDS is required on bank guarantee commission, should be treated as retrospective to reduce assessee hardship. Therefore, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) can be made for non-deduction of TDS on such payments.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the benchmarking on account of AMP expenses. Consequently, the grounds related to AMP adjustments were not pressed by the assessee and were considered academic.

The Tribunal held that a golf course qualifies as 'plant and machinery' eligible for depreciation, reversing the lower authorities' decisions. It also ruled that refundable security deposits are capital receipts and not taxable income, while membership fees should be taxed in the year they accrue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary action was barred by limitation. The limitation period for revision under Section 263 should have commenced from the date of the original assessment order, not the reassessment order, as the issues raised by the PCIT pertained to the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that exchange fluctuation loss arising on revaluation of business advances at the year-end is allowable as a deduction. This decision was based on precedents from the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal held that the share premium was justified by the company's land purchase and development projects, and the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of shareholders were not disputed. It also held that Section 2(22)(e) was not attracted as the advances were for business purposes and the conditions for deemed dividend were not met.

The Tribunal held that the foreign currency gain on reinstatement of foreign currency loan for capital assets, as per AS-11 and Section 43A, should not be added to taxable income. The issue of gratuity provision was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the foreign currency gain on reinstatement of foreign currency loan for capital assets, as per AS-11 and Section 43A, should not be added to taxable income. The issue of gratuity provision was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a golf course qualifies as 'plant and machinery' eligible for depreciation, reversing the lower authorities' decisions. It also ruled that refundable security deposits are capital receipts and not taxable income, while membership fees should be taxed in the year they accrue.

The Tribunal held that if advances were made and received back on the same day as part of business transactions between parties engaged in similar trade, it would not be covered under Section 2(22)(e). Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not legally valid. This was because the Assessing Officer did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated, which is a jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal held that transponder charges received by the non-resident assessee are not taxable as royalty, both under the Income Tax Act and the India-Thailand DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred for organizing camps, including medicine and food distribution, were integral to imparting practical training and field exposure to students and thus directly connected to educational activities. The Tribunal also found no evidence of loans given to trustees.

The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed called for and examined complete details of loans given and received, including interest payments and TDS. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue, as the transactions were ongoing and properly documented.

The Tribunal held that the loss on the investment was a capital loss, not a business loss. The investment was disclosed as an investment in the balance sheet and did not qualify under the company's memorandum for investments in entities with similar objects. The write-off was considered an accounting entry for a permanent diminution in the value of a long-term investment.

The Tribunal held that the profit from the shareholder's account should be treated as part of the life insurance business, following its own previous decisions. It also allowed exemption for dividend income under Section 10(34) and amended directions regarding the re-computation of losses and set-off.

The Tribunal held that since the reassessment proceedings were quashed by a co-ordinate bench, the consequential penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) does not survive. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition on which the penalty was levied has been deleted in earlier proceedings, the penalty would not survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that for the interest payment to Tata Capital, the assessee should be granted the benefit of the proviso to Section 201(1) and Section 40(a)(ia) if certain conditions are met, remanding the issue to the AO. For the interest on advances, the Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that losses on amortization of premium for HTM securities, when the securities are treated as stock-in-trade and sold before maturity, are notional and not allowable. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim for leave encashment provision in the year of actual payment, following the Supreme Court's decision on Section 43B(f).

The Tribunal reduced the addition for unexplained expenses to Rs. 3 lakhs and directed the AO to allow depreciation on fixed assets. For the unexplained credit, the Tribunal found that the cash deposits were explained by income surrendered in a previous assessment year and that other additions were supported by documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the revised CBDT circular. The Revenue was given liberty to seek re-institution if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the revenue sharing agreement constituted a diversion of income by overriding title, not an application of income. Consequently, the expenditure was allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that losses on amortization of premium for HTM securities, when the securities are treated as stock-in-trade and sold before maturity, are notional and not allowable. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim for leave encashment provision in the year of actual payment, following the Supreme Court's decision on Section 43B(f).

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals on the ground that a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee in an earlier year. The assessee's cross-objections were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions involving client code modifications. The AO's findings were considered justified, and the CIT(A)'s order was not interfered with.