ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2020

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) to verify the filing of delay condonation applications. If filed, the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate them leniently and then decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) to verify the filing of delay condonation applications. If filed, the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate them leniently and then decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) to verify the filing of delay condonation applications. If filed, the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate them leniently and then decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) to verify the filing of delay condonation applications. If filed, the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate them leniently and then decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that even if an assessee follows the completed contract method, expenditure incurred subsequent to the project's completion must be allowed as revenue expenditure, citing a Delhi High Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. Following the Supreme Court's dictum, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective and did not empower the Assessing Officer to charge Section 234E fees for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015. Therefore, intimations levying these fees prior to the amendment were invalid.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective and did not empower the Assessing Officer to charge Section 234E fees for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015. Therefore, intimations levying these fees prior to the amendment were invalid.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective and did not empower the Assessing Officer to charge Section 234E fees for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015. Therefore, intimations levying these fees prior to the amendment were invalid.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective and did not empower the Assessing Officer to charge Section 234E fees for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015. Therefore, intimations levying these fees prior to the amendment were invalid.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty related to the disallowance of loan raising costs as the addition was already deleted in quantum appeal. For the provision of non-performing assets, the penalty was deleted because the claim was bona fide and based on prevailing legal judgments at the time of filing the return, even though later overturned by the Supreme Court.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective and did not empower the Assessing Officer to charge Section 234E fees for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015. Therefore, intimations levying these fees prior to the amendment were invalid.

The Tribunal held that the amount transferred to the Asset Replacement Reserve Account did not constitute taxable income for the assessee. This decision was based on previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case for earlier years, which were upheld by the Delhi High Court and where the Department's SLP was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the school running expenses were integral to the assessee's business and that the golf club membership receipts were correctly spread over the membership period. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as the AO lacked the required dissatisfaction and the assessee had sufficient own funds.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective and did not empower the Assessing Officer to charge Section 234E fees for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015. Therefore, intimations levying these fees prior to the amendment were invalid.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge late fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be charged for TDS returns processed before June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that the amount transferred to the Asset Replacement Reserve Account did not constitute taxable income for the assessee. This decision was based on previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case for earlier years, which were upheld by the Delhi High Court and where the Department's SLP was dismissed.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective and did not empower the Assessing Officer to charge Section 234E fees for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015. Therefore, intimations levying these fees prior to the amendment were invalid.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A was restricted to the actual expenditure incurred. Regarding interest under Section 234C, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the interest as the income had not accrued by the due date of advance tax payment due to unforeseen circumstances.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on the merits. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal allowed depreciation on leased assets, directed a fresh decision on Section 14A expenses after providing an opportunity, and allowed the foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The Assessing Officer's appeal regarding redemption premium was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge late fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be charged for TDS returns processed before June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal allowed depreciation on leased assets, directed a fresh decision on Section 14A expenses after providing an opportunity, and allowed the foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The Assessing Officer's appeal regarding redemption premium was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) empowering the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E was prospective. Therefore, for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge such fees in the intimation.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on the merits. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that interest is payable on the entire self-assessment tax refunded from the date of payment, as the 10% threshold in Section 244A(1)(a) is not applicable to self-assessment tax. It was also held that even a part of a month constitutes a full month for interest calculation.

The Tribunal held that IFCI Limited was the legal owner of the leased assets and had used them for its business of leasing. Therefore, the conditions for claiming depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act were met.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on the merits. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E fee was not leviable for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A(1) making it applicable for computation of such fees was prospective. The fee was directed to be deleted.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on the merits. Following the Supreme Court's precedent, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), modifying the disallowance amount.

The Tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E is not leviable for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) was introduced only from that date. Consequently, the demand for late filing fee and consequent interest was deleted.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings as they were initiated without fresh tangible material, constituting a mere change of opinion by the AO. Consequently, the appeal by the revenue against the CIT(A)'s order on merits became infructuous.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The withdrawal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.