ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2021

For AY 2009-2010, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided confirmations, bank statements, ITRs, and balance sheets of the investor companies. However, the AO noted that the confirmations were from the assessee's ledger accounts, not the investor companies' ledgers. The AO also noted that the investor companies declared NIL or meagre income, raising doubts about their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal, however, set aside the addition of Rs. 6.70 crores, stating that the issue was identical to AY 2010-2011, and the order for that year would be followed. For AY 2010-2011, the Tribunal set aside the addition of Rs. 9.60 crores, allowing the grounds of appeal. Regarding the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 2(22)(e), the Tribunal held that the assessee, being an NBFC registered with the RBI and primarily engaged in financing and investment, fell under Exception (ii) to Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal noted that lending money was a substantial part of the assessee's business, citing judgments that business transactions do not attract Section 2(22)(e). Therefore, the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs was deleted, and the ground of appeal was allowed. No other points were argued.

For AY 2009-2010, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided confirmations, bank statements, ITRs, and balance sheets of the investor companies. However, the AO noted that the confirmations were from the assessee's ledger accounts, not the investor companies' ledgers. The AO also noted that the investor companies declared NIL or meagre income, raising doubts about their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal, however, set aside the addition of Rs. 6.70 crores, stating that the issue was identical to AY 2010-2011, and the order for that year would be followed. For AY 2010-2011, the Tribunal set aside the addition of Rs. 9.60 crores, allowing the grounds of appeal. Regarding the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 2(22)(e), the Tribunal held that the assessee, being an NBFC registered with the RBI and primarily engaged in financing and investment, fell under Exception (ii) to Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal noted that lending money was a substantial part of the assessee's business, citing judgments that business transactions do not attract Section 2(22)(e). Therefore, the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs was deleted, and the ground of appeal was allowed. No other points were argued.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, which was in favor of the assessee, was applicable. The additions made by the AO were based on the revenue's pending appeal before the Apex Court.

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 Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

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

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted this request.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was acknowledged.

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 Senior DR had no objection to this withdrawal.

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

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute resolution under the scheme failed.

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

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 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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.

The CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty, finding that the AO did not establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The AO's actions were mechanical, lacking proper inquiry and a clear finding of concealment, and the penalty was initiated on one limb but the order was passed on another.

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

The Tribunal held that interest on credit card dues should be allowed as a business expense, as the credit card was used for business purposes and the interest was akin to a temporary loan. It also held that ad-hoc disallowances of expenses are not justified when accounts are audited and no specific discrepancies are pointed out by the AO.

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 per the assessee's request.

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

The Tribunal considered the Revenue's application for withdrawal of the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee's successful application under the VSVS, 2020 scheme.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record his dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim regarding expenses incurred for earning exempt income before invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D. Without such recorded dissatisfaction, the addition is unsustainable.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circulars which set monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue did not press the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek reinstitution of the appeal if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme.

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

The Tribunal considered the Revenue's application for withdrawal of the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee's successful application under the VSVS, 2020 scheme.

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

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request and ordered the appeal to be consigned to records and treated as dismissed. This dismissal is conditional on the dispute being resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

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 appeals. The Revenue's appeals were accordingly dismissed.

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 Income Tax Appellate 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 per the assessee's request.

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

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot substitute his own valuation for the one provided by an independent valuer using the prescribed DCF method, especially when no specific inaccuracies are pointed out. ROC fees are considered preliminary expenditure under Section 35D.

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

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.

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