ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if there is no exempt income received or receivable during the year. It also held that certain miscellaneous income, including rent recovery and write-back of liabilities, were incidental to the business and eligible for Section 80IA deduction.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not specific, making the initiation of penalty proceedings bad in law. Furthermore, on merits, the claims were considered bonafide mistakes, not intentional concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and that this applied to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars) and there was inconsistency between the AO's and CIT(A)'s reasoning. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable as the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon. The penalty notice was also found to be vague. Therefore, the penalty did not survive on technical and merit grounds.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary and dominant activity was promoting sports, and accepting sponsorship did not negate its charitable purpose. It also upheld the allowance of depreciation on assets purchased from application of income for charitable purposes.

The Tribunal held that once an assessment is quashed, it cannot be reopened without fresh tangible material. The absence of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) also invalidates the reassessment proceedings. The sanction under section 151 was also found to be invalid.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the tax dispute is not resolved under the VSV Act, parties can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that once an assessment is quashed, it cannot be reopened without fresh tangible material. The absence of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) also invalidates the reassessment proceedings. The sanction under section 151 was also found to be invalid.

The Tribunal heard the submissions and perused the records. In view of the assessee's request, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO led to double addition as the transactions were already recorded in the master cash book and ledger, for which surrender had been made and accepted. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was confirmed.

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

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO led to double addition as the transactions were already recorded in the master cash book and ledger, for which surrender had been made and accepted. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO led to double addition as the transactions were already recorded in the master cash book and ledger, for which surrender had been made and accepted. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was confirmed.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the tax dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, parties can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) were based on debatable issues of law and interpretation of tax treaties. Merely not filing an appeal against these disallowances does not automatically imply concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without disposing of the appeal in writing with reasons, as required by Section 250(6). The reliance on a case where a party failed to appear was misplaced.

The Tribunal held that the activities of the seconded expatriate employees did not constitute a fixed place PE of the assessee in India. Therefore, no business income could be attributed to the assessee in India through these employees.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Department had no objection.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the tax dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, parties can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the tax dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, parties can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

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

The assessee's counsel submitted a letter stating that the client had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, which was approved. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) is empowered to examine the genuineness of the activities and the charitable nature of the objects, but not the application of income at the stage of registration. The CIT(E) failed to provide evidence that the objects were not charitable.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, 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 accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the revised CBDT circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach for re-institution if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits and in rejecting the additional evidence. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, aimed at eradicating HIV/AIDS and providing medical relief, were charitable in nature. Merely charging a management fee to cover administrative costs did not convert these charitable activities into business activities.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the tax dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, parties can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, following the decision of a Coordinate Bench. The Tribunal held that since the rental income was disputed and had not accrued, no addition could be made, and taxability would be examined upon receipt.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, following the decision of a Coordinate Bench. The Tribunal held that since the rental income was disputed and had not accrued, no addition could be made, and taxability would be examined upon receipt.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, aimed at eradicating HIV/AIDS and providing medical relief, were charitable in nature. Merely charging a management fee to cover administrative costs did not convert these charitable activities into business activities.

The tribunal noted the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the fluctuation loss on foreign currency loan for acquiring capital assets in India is capital in nature and cannot be allowed as a deduction. The assessee's inconsistent treatment of the loan further supported this decision.

The Tribunal held that once an assessment is quashed, it cannot be reopened without fresh tangible material. The absence of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) also invalidates the reassessment proceedings. The sanction under section 151 was also found to be invalid.

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 Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.