ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2021

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 restored the issue of premium on re-purchase of plots to the AO for verification, directing deletion of the addition if plots were sold at a higher price. The issue of provision for site development expenses was also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal to be consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted the request.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the request.

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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek reinstitution of the appeals if the dispute is not 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified. It found that the assessee's business exigencies required cash payments for expenses like fuel and repairs incurred en route, and the genuineness of expenses was not doubted.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the tax authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals 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 appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSVS Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that no proceedings can continue against the corporate debtor during insolvency proceedings as per Section 14 of the IBC, 2016. Therefore, all appeals filed by the Assessing Officer were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that goodwill qualifies as a business or commercial right of a similar nature and is eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to depreciation on goodwill.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the income from corpus fund investments was a diversion of income by overriding title, as it belonged to the Central and State Governments. For the second issue, it was held that Section 14A is not applicable to insurance companies whose income is computed under Section 44.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish conclusive proof that the share capital raised was not genuine. Mere assertions about the investors' income or inability to locate them at the given address were insufficient to sustain the addition.

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

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not properly served with notices, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(Exemptions) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not properly served with notices, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(Exemptions) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer mechanically applied Rule 8D without recording specific satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim. Following its own precedent in the assessee's own case for earlier years, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that no proceedings can continue against the corporate debtor during insolvency proceedings as per Section 14 of the IBC, 2016. Therefore, all appeals filed by the Assessing Officer were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

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 admitted the additional plea regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as it goes to the root of the matter. It held that the notice issued under section 143(2) was barred by limitation, rendering the assessment proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal and cross-objection. The dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted the request.

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

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer mechanically applied Rule 8D without recording specific satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim. Following its own precedent in the assessee's own case for earlier years, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's health issues and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal is to be decided on merits.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the additions were based on post-search inquiries and not on any seized documents, they were not in consonance with the law.

The Tribunal noted that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has an overriding effect over the Income-tax Act. The assessee's counsel stated they did not press the appeal.

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 opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). The rejection of the adjournment request, especially on the ground of counsel's occupation, was considered improper.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1), which prohibits CSR expenditure from being claimed under Section 37(1), was not applicable for the Assessment Year 2014-15 as it was introduced later. Therefore, the expenditure is allowable.

The Tribunal held that no proceedings can continue against the corporate debtor during insolvency proceedings as per Section 14 of the IBC, 2016. Therefore, all appeals filed by the Assessing Officer were dismissed.

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

The Tribunal held that no proceedings can continue against the corporate debtor during insolvency proceedings as per Section 14 of the IBC, 2016. Therefore, all appeals filed by the Assessing Officer were dismissed.

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