ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2020

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were illegal and invalid because the notice was issued after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without an allegation of failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the exempt income, following its own precedents. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation at 60% on UPS, citing High Court rulings.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Revenue had no objection. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the respondent had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on UPS should be allowed at 60%, aligning with the amended depreciation schedule and High Court rulings. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances for depreciation on pollution control and energy-saving equipment, citing previous tribunal orders and the fact that assets were installed and ready for use.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on UPS should be allowed at 60%, aligning with the amended depreciation schedule and High Court rulings. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances for depreciation on pollution control and energy-saving equipment, citing previous tribunal orders and the fact that assets were installed and ready for use.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no addition under Section 68 of the Act is warranted, following the decision in Kabul Chawla. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Senior DR had no objection. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal decided to remit the issue of depreciation on goodwill back to the Assessing Officer for verification. It allowed the claim for mark-to-market foreign exchange loss, reversing the disallowance. The subscription charges were disallowed as a donation, with a direction for the AO to verify potential deduction under Section 80G.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on UPS should be allowed at 60%, aligning with the amended depreciation schedule and High Court rulings. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances for depreciation on pollution control and energy-saving equipment, citing previous tribunal orders and the fact that assets were installed and ready for use.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated solely based on an audit objection and constituted a change of opinion, as the AO had all the necessary information during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment was bad in law.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Revenue had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no addition under Section 68 of the Act is warranted, following the decision in Kabul Chawla. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on UPS should be allowed at 60%, aligning with the amended depreciation schedule and High Court rulings. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances for depreciation on pollution control and energy-saving equipment, citing previous tribunal orders and the fact that assets were installed and ready for use.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Revenue, allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowances as the issues were covered by the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case, which was also confirmed by the jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no addition under Section 68 of the Act is warranted, following the decision in Kabul Chawla. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the exempt income, following its own precedents. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation at 60% on UPS, citing High Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on UPS should be allowed at 60%, aligning with the amended depreciation schedule and High Court rulings. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances for depreciation on pollution control and energy-saving equipment, citing previous tribunal orders and the fact that assets were installed and ready for use.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on UPS should be allowed at 60%, aligning with the amended depreciation schedule and High Court rulings. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances for depreciation on pollution control and energy-saving equipment, citing previous tribunal orders and the fact that assets were installed and ready for use.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-communication. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no addition under Section 68 of the Act is warranted, following the decision in Kabul Chawla. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the respondent had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Senior Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on UPS should be allowed at 60%, aligning with the amended depreciation schedule and High Court rulings. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances for depreciation on pollution control and energy-saving equipment, citing previous tribunal orders and the fact that assets were installed and ready for use.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the respondent had no objection. The appeal was therefore dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Senior Departmental Representative did not object to this request.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on UPS should be allowed at 60%, aligning with the amended depreciation schedule and High Court rulings. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances for depreciation on pollution control and energy-saving equipment, citing previous tribunal orders and the fact that assets were installed and ready for use.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the Assessing Officer had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.