ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2020

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing confirmations, bank statements, ITR acknowledgments, and balance sheets of the creditors, demonstrating their identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions through banking channels. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not conduct adequate inquiries and that the assessee is not required to prove the source of the source.

The Tribunal held that rental income earned by the assessee company should be treated as business income, following the Supreme Court's decisions. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the AO was directed to accept the rental income as business income.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not beyond jurisdiction as the approval from the Joint CIT was obtained and there was no requirement to provide a copy of this approval to the assessee. The addition on account of un-reconciled balances was deleted as the difference was minor and the books of account were not rejected.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 was not beyond jurisdiction as the approval from the Joint CIT was obtained and there was no requirement to provide a copy of this approval to the assessee. The addition on account of un-reconciled balances was deleted as the difference was minor and the books of account were not rejected.

The assessee has opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the AO made ad-hoc disallowances primarily due to a decline in the assessee's net profit ratio compared to previous years. Considering the past assessment history and the overall profitability, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the net income to 1.90% of the total turnover.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the transfer of leasehold rights in land. Therefore, the addition made by the AO based on stamp duty valuation was deleted.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, subject to the issuance of Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The stay application was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that disallowance cannot be made on an ad-hoc basis or merely in the interest of revenue. Unless there is a specific violation of provisions like Section 40A(3) or a finding that expenses are personal, they should be allowed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for re-institution if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation for agricultural land is part of the compensation and is tax-free for individuals and HUFs under Section 10(37) if the land transferred is agricultural.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the source of the deposits by providing sufficient evidence of painting sales. The Tribunal set aside the additions made by the AO and directed the AO to grant the benefit of Section 54F.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were illegal and void because the AO reopened the assessment based solely on the Investigation Wing's report without independent application of mind. Consequently, all subsequent additions were deleted.