ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2020

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the Assessing Officer to charge late fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations issued under Section 200A.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the Assessing Officer to charge late fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations issued under Section 200A.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the Assessing Officer to charge late fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations issued under Section 200A.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the Assessing Officer to charge late fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through intimations issued under Section 200A.

The Tribunal held that profit on sale/redemption of investments is not taxable in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 528 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision. It also ruled that Section 14A is not applicable to insurance companies due to the overriding nature of Section 44 and the First Schedule. Other grounds raised by the Revenue were also decided in favour of the assessee based on previous precedents.

The Tribunal held that since the entire contract amounts were offered to tax, the assessee is allowed to claim the unrecoverable debts as bad debts. For the shuttering expenses, the matter was remanded back to the AO to verify TDS compliance.

The Tribunal held that profit on sale/redemption of investments is not taxable in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 528 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision. It also ruled that Section 14A is not applicable to insurance companies due to the overriding nature of Section 44 and the First Schedule. Other grounds raised by the Revenue were also decided in favour of the assessee based on previous precedents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the dispute being resolved under the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the dispute being resolved under the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the dispute being resolved under the Act.

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 Section 234E fee is not leviable for defaults occurring prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) was introduced on that date. Consequently, the late filing fee and consequent interest were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, which enabled the charging of late fees under section 234E during the processing of TDS statements, was prospective in nature. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge these fees for periods prior to June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, which enabled the charging of late fees under section 234E during the processing of TDS statements, was prospective in nature. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge these fees for periods prior to June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, which enabled the charging of late fees under section 234E during the processing of TDS statements, was prospective in nature. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge these fees for periods prior to June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, which enabled the charging of late fees under section 234E during the processing of TDS statements, was prospective in nature. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge these fees for periods prior to June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, which enabled the charging of late fees under section 234E during the processing of TDS statements, was prospective in nature. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge these fees for periods prior to June 1, 2015.

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 Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio and must be quashed. The participation in proceedings by the successor entity does not validate an assessment made on a defunct entity.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not consider the relevant material and the assessee's justification for the stock difference. The addition made on account of the stock difference was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and was awaiting Form 3. Both parties agreed to have the appeals dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the issuance of Form 3.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted because the necessary relief had been granted by the Assessing Officer in a revised assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lakhs.

The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the AO to grant exemption under Section 11 based on the ITAT's earlier decision. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no merit in the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

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

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that in non-abated cases, additions under Section 153A require incriminating material unearthed during the search, as per the Kabul Chawla judgment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that in non-abated cases, additions under Section 153A require incriminating material unearthed during the search, as per the Kabul Chawla judgment.

The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute was not resolved under the Act.

The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute was not resolved under the Act.

The tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.

The tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.

The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.