ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2021

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 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 held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid due to incorrect facts in the reasons recorded and a mechanical approval by the Principal CIT. Consequently, all additions were deleted.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn. For the assessee's appeal, grounds 1 and 2 were dismissed as infructuous, and ground 3 regarding prior period expenses was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to file a revised computation and that the interest paid on the overdraft should be considered for deduction. The matter of disallowance of 20% of expenses was also remanded for further verification.

The Tribunal found that Rs. 3,00,000/- paid as margin money was explained by amounts received from the assessee's son. It also noted a contra entry of Rs. 1,00,000/- due to a cancelled cheque, thus explaining the entire Rs. 4,00,000/-.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's capital account, determined after the financial year-end, could not be considered as available interest-free funds for lending. However, the AO's assumption of interest for a full 12 months was also not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on the issue of additional depreciation, following a previous order. Regarding reopening under Section 147, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating as the main grounds were decided on merits, making the Section 147 issue academic.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn. For the assessee's appeal, grounds 1 and 2 were dismissed as infructuous, and ground 3 regarding prior period expenses was allowed.

The Tribunal, following its own prior decision for AY 2012-13, allowed the appeal. It held that the business loss, including director's remuneration, should be allowed, as the issue was covered by the earlier favorable ruling.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to independently apply his mind to the information received and recorded incorrect facts in the reasons for reopening. The reopening of assessment was deemed invalid and quashed.

The Tribunal held that the purchase of shares occurred in a prior assessment year and thus the addition under Section 69 was deleted. Regarding the Section 68 addition, the Tribunal found that the assessee's name was not mentioned in the SEBI orders concerning price rigging, and the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the assessee was inadequate to fully demonstrate the genuineness of the share capital/premium transactions and investments. The CIT(A) had not sufficiently considered the evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for further inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not brought anything on record to prove that the objects of the trust were not charitable in nature. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) is not empowered to examine the application of income at the stage of granting registration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not brought anything on record to prove that the objects of the trust were not charitable in nature. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) is not empowered to examine the application of income at the stage of granting registration.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not justified as it was based on notional income. The Tribunal followed its previous orders for multiple assessment years where similar additions were deleted.

The Tribunal found no substantiation for the CIT's reasoning and decided to remand the matter back to the CIT. The assessee was directed to comply with notices and present their case anew.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT pertains to the powers of the assessing authority and does not limit the powers of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The AO was directed to adjudicate the claim for additional depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer reopens an assessment based on specific escaped income but then makes an addition on a different ground, it is not permissible without a fresh notice. The assessment order was quashed as it did not comply with the statutory conditions.

The Tribunal accepted the additional grounds of appeal, following Supreme Court and High Court judgments. It held that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not clearly specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c), making the penalty levied unsustainable.

The Tribunal accepted the additional grounds of appeal, following Supreme Court and High Court judgments. It held that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not clearly specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c), making the penalty levied unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's business sales and cash book entries. The additions for household expenses and rent difference were also deleted as they were based on assumptions and the rent agreement supported the assessee's claim.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and a certificate was issued to this effect. Consequently, the appeal was deemed to have been withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted because the matter in issue was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on issues related to Section 80IA, exempt income yielding investments, TDS, and Education Cess. The revenue's appeal was dismissed on the issue of Rule 8D(2)(ii), while the assessee's appeal was dismissed on Rule 8D(2)(iii) and CSR expenditure.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on issues related to Section 80IA, exempt income yielding investments, TDS, and Education Cess. The revenue's appeal was dismissed on the issue of Rule 8D(2)(ii), while the assessee's appeal was dismissed on Rule 8D(2)(iii) and CSR expenditure.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on issues related to Section 80IA, exempt income yielding investments, TDS, and Education Cess. The revenue's appeal was dismissed on the issue of Rule 8D(2)(ii), while the assessee's appeal was dismissed on Rule 8D(2)(iii) and CSR expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the settlement of the issue under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A should be allowed for the entire month even if tax payments were made on the last day. For the assessee's appeals, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation of interest.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by NHAI to concessionaries were in the nature of capital grants or subsidies and not contractual payments. Therefore, Section 194C of the Income Tax Act was not applicable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal was dismissed without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for re-decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous due to the DRP's order and subsequent deletion of additions by the TPO.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on issues related to Section 80IA, exempt income yielding investments, TDS, and Education Cess. The revenue's appeal was dismissed on the issue of Rule 8D(2)(ii), while the assessee's appeal was dismissed on Rule 8D(2)(iii) and CSR expenditure.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on issues related to Section 80IA, exempt income yielding investments, TDS, and Education Cess. The revenue's appeal was dismissed on the issue of Rule 8D(2)(ii), while the assessee's appeal was dismissed on Rule 8D(2)(iii) and CSR expenditure.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on issues related to Section 80IA, exempt income yielding investments, TDS, and Education Cess. The revenue's appeal was dismissed on the issue of Rule 8D(2)(ii), while the assessee's appeal was dismissed on Rule 8D(2)(iii) and CSR expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The funds were accounted for and routed through group companies, not representing undisclosed income of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO recorded incorrect facts in the reasons for reopening and the Additional CIT granted approval mechanically without proper application of mind. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.