ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2020

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to the AO mentioning a deleted section (147(b)) and the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner being invalid without proper application of mind. Consequently, the additions made were quashed.

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 Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure was related to promoting the business of metal packaging and spreading awareness about sustainability. Following its own previous orders and the Karnataka High Court's decision, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the VSV scheme. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 51 and Section 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, which made forfeited advances taxable, were applicable only from April 1, 2015. For the assessment year 2013-14, such forfeited amounts were to be deducted from the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains, not taxed as income.

The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed. This dismissal is conditional on the dispute being resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The appeal was therefore consigned to records and treated as dismissed.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular mandates that departmental appeals shall not be filed if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 lacs. Since the tax effect in this case was below the specified limit, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal held that the TPO's attempt to rectify his earlier order under Section 154 was bad in law, as rectification cannot be done for matters already considered and decided in appeal. The assessment order passed pursuant to this rectification was also deemed void ab initio.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was to be deleted. Following the findings of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure after verifying that investments were made from the assessee's own funds and not borrowed funds. Regarding administrative costs, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a categorical explanation that no expenditure was attributable to earning exempt income, especially since investments were made in earlier years and only one dividend cheque was received during the year. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer failed to record the mandatory satisfaction as required by Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D(1) before mechanically applying Rule 8D, citing the decisions in *HT Media Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT* and *Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT & Anr.*. The Tribunal also held that the excise duty refund, being capital in nature, could not be part of book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal's decision was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances, including no investment during the year for earning exempt income, receipt of only one dividend cheque, and the AO's failure to record satisfaction. The Tribunal clarified that this decision would not operate as an exemplar in cases with different facts. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was to be deleted. Following the findings of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure after verifying that investments were made from the assessee's own funds and not borrowed funds. Regarding administrative costs, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a categorical explanation that no expenditure was attributable to earning exempt income, especially since investments were made in earlier years and only one dividend cheque was received during the year. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer failed to record the mandatory satisfaction as required by Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D(1) before mechanically applying Rule 8D, citing the decisions in *HT Media Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT* and *Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT & Anr.*. The Tribunal also held that the excise duty refund, being capital in nature, could not be part of book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal's decision was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances, including no investment during the year for earning exempt income, receipt of only one dividend cheque, and the AO's failure to record satisfaction. The Tribunal clarified that this decision would not operate as an exemplar in cases with different facts. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the additions made in the section 153A assessments were identical to those already decided on merits by the Tribunal in prior appeals. Therefore, the current appeals were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the additions made in the section 153A assessments were identical to those already decided on merits by the Tribunal in prior appeals. Therefore, the current appeals were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the additions made in the section 153A assessments were identical to those already decided on merits by the Tribunal in prior appeals. Therefore, the current appeals were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the additions made in the section 153A assessments were identical to those already decided on merits by the Tribunal in prior appeals. Therefore, the current appeals were rendered infructuous.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the notice under Section 148 were issued and passed in the name of a non-existent entity due to the prior merger of the assessee company. Therefore, the assessment was considered legally invalid.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to bring tangible evidence to prove the lender was a dummy company. The assessee had provided all necessary documents, and the revenue did not rebut this evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the protective addition for bank credits should be deleted as no substantive addition was made in any other hand. The commission rate was reduced from 3% to 0.5% on the bank deposits.

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

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The appeals were consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to a caveat.

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

The Tribunal disposed of both departmental appeals. This was done based on the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, subject to the issuance of Form No. 3.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal disposed of both departmental appeals. This was done based on the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, pending the issuance of Form No. 3.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.