ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2020

The Tribunal found that the assessee's reason for non-appearance before the CIT(A) was genuine due to non-receipt of notice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication with an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not properly consider the documentary evidence produced by the assessee during the remand proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding cessation of liability as the assessee failed to provide evidence of future payment. However, issues concerning commission expenses and cessation of trading liability were remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication due to lack of detailed comments on evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the reason for the error in the client code modification. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was found to be justified.

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 transaction was a family arrangement and not a gift, benefit, or perquisite. The AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making observations about a third party when no addition was made to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal remanded the Section 50C issue to the Assessing Officer for reference to the DVO for valuation. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, agreeing that it could not exceed exempt income and should be based on actual investment yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the DRP/AO's order, especially in the absence of distinguishable features presented by the assessee.

The Tribunal remanded the Section 50C issue to the Assessing Officer for reference to the DVO for valuation. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, agreeing that it could not exceed exempt income and should be based on actual investment yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify the exact charge under Section 271(1)(c) for which penalty was being levied. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the notice to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked proper jurisdiction to pass the assessment order as the procedure for transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 was not followed. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed null and void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to follow proper procedural aspects regarding evidence. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the business was operational during the year, and the incurred expenses were for the purpose of trade. Therefore, the disallowance of rent, salary, and other expenses was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the omissions was bonafide, considering the job changes, outstation employment, and reliance on a consultant for return preparation. The ESOP income was non-cash and had TDS deducted, as reflected in Form 26AS.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's inquiry was beyond the scope of the search proceedings, as no incriminating material linking the assessee to the alleged account was found. The assessee cannot be compelled to create or sign documents for an account they deny possessing.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to a lack of application of mind by the AO and the Principal Commissioner in approving the notice. Issuing a notice to a non-existent entity and then completing the assessment in another name renders the reopening jurisdictionally defective.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reassessment were incorrect as the alleged share capital received from entry operators was not substantiated. The addition of Rs. 14,00,000 was also found to be erroneous as it included amounts received by another entity and the AO failed to properly examine the nature and source of the credit.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's inquiry was beyond the scope of the search proceedings, as no incriminating material linking the assessee to the alleged account was found. The assessee cannot be compelled to create or sign documents for an account they deny possessing.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's inquiry was beyond the scope of the search proceedings, as no incriminating material linking the assessee to the alleged account was found. The assessee cannot be compelled to create or sign documents for an account they deny possessing.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's inquiry was beyond the scope of the search proceedings, as no incriminating material linking the assessee to the alleged account was found. The assessee cannot be compelled to create or sign documents for an account they deny possessing.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies (Accentia Technologies Ltd., Crossdomain Solution Pvt. Ltd.) from the list of comparables used for transfer pricing analysis due to functional dissimilarity and extraordinary events. The matter was remanded for recalculation of the arm's length price.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's inquiry was beyond the scope of the search proceedings, as no incriminating material linking the assessee to the alleged account was found. The assessee cannot be compelled to create or sign documents for an account they deny possessing.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's inquiry was beyond the scope of the search proceedings, as no incriminating material linking the assessee to the alleged account was found. The assessee cannot be compelled to create or sign documents for an account they deny possessing.

The Tribunal noted extraordinary circumstances, including the illness of the assessee's brother-in-law and father-in-law, and legal troubles of related companies, which prevented the assessee from furnishing details. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted extraordinary circumstances, including the illness of the assessee's brother-in-law and father-in-law, and legal troubles of related companies, which prevented the assessee from furnishing details. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of registration under Section 12AA, the amounts received by the trust were rightly taxed at the maximum marginal rate as per Section 167B(2) of the IT Act. The CIT(A) had correctly confirmed the Assessing Officer's action.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's inquiry was beyond the scope of the search proceedings, as no incriminating material linking the assessee to the alleged account was found. The assessee cannot be compelled to create or sign documents for an account they deny possessing.

The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies were not appropriate due to differences in product lines or significant turnover variations. It directed that capacity utilization adjustment, previously granted in earlier assessment years, should also be accorded in the current year.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the AO did not record specific satisfaction and the notice did not clearly state the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was being levied. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the land was a long-term investment and the surplus on sale should be treated as capital gains, not business income. The assessee's consistent practice of showing the asset at cost and holding it for a long period supported this view.

The Tribunal held that the JV was not an AOP and that payments made by the JV to its partners were not covered by Section 40A(2)(b). The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of the ITAT in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the JV was not an AOP and that payments made by the JV to its partners were not covered by Section 40A(2)(b). The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of the ITAT in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the JV was not an AOP and that payments made by the JV to its partners were not covered by Section 40A(2)(b). The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of the ITAT in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that since raw material and finished goods are intrinsically linked in the manufacturing process, the benefit of excess finished goods should be given as a set-off against the raw material shortage. Consequently, no separate addition for excess finished goods was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was not clear as to whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the notice and order under Section 263 were issued to a deceased person, the proceedings are void ab initio and invalid in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal held that the JV was not an AOP and that payments made by the JV to its partners were not covered by Section 40A(2)(b). The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of the ITAT in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not applied his mind while recording the reasons for reopening, as the amount mentioned in the reasons differed from the amount added in the assessment. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied on deleted additions is not tenable and set it aside. It also directed the deletion of repair expense disallowance, finding that payments were made via account payee cheques. The Section 14A disallowance was also deleted as Rule 8D was not legally tenable and the assessee had suo moto disallowed a portion of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied on deleted additions is not tenable and set it aside. It also directed the deletion of repair expense disallowance, finding that payments were made via account payee cheques. The Section 14A disallowance was also deleted as Rule 8D was not legally tenable and the assessee had suo moto disallowed a portion of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest on borrowed monies was wrongly made under Section 40A(2)(b) as the conditions were not met. It also held that no disallowance was warranted under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. The disallowances for Capital Work in Progress, Diwali, and food expenses were also deleted.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not properly consider the documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of investments and capital introduction. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not properly consider the documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of investments and capital introduction. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for cash receipts and substantiate the source of cash deposits. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the claim of interest expenses, even if disallowed, did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The assessee's explanation that its business was real estate investment was considered valid.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal, similar to their non-appearance before the CIT(A). This conduct indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the matter.

The Tribunal held that NTPC Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (NTPCESL) was not a suitable comparable due to functional dissimilarity, as it primarily received work from its holding company and government entities. The Tribunal also noted that the TPO had rejected comparables based on service income filters, not functional dissimilarity.

The Tribunal held that NTPC Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (NTPCESL) was not a suitable comparable due to functional dissimilarity, as it primarily received work from its holding company and government entities. The Tribunal also noted that the TPO had rejected comparables based on service income filters, not functional dissimilarity.

The Tribunal held that the AO's decision not to refer the matter to the DVO under Section 50C was a discretionary power and not mandatory, thus not erroneous. The Tribunal also found that the PCIT erred in raising the issue of TDS on cost of improvement without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.