ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2021

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was legal and went to the root of the matter. It held that the show cause notice was invalid as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was proposed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was legal and went to the root of the matter. It held that the show cause notice was invalid as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was proposed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was legal and went to the root of the matter. It held that the show cause notice was invalid as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was proposed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was legal and went to the root of the matter. It held that the show cause notice was invalid as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was proposed.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of their appeals. The revenue's appeals were also deemed withdrawn with liberty to recall if tax rate disputes remain unsettled. Consequently, all appeals and cross-objections were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to bring any evidence on record to prove that the assessee's share transactions were not genuine. The sale of shares was conducted through a recognized stock exchange with STT paid, and payments were received through banking channels.

The Tribunal allowed the entertainment of additional grounds for interest subsidy and education cess, remitting these issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Other grounds were either consequential or academic.

The Principal Commissioner (Pr. CIT) initiated proceedings under Section 263, alleging that the AO failed to consider material seized during a search in another group of cases, which suggested accommodation entries. The Tribunal is reviewing the Pr. CIT's order.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act by dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits and also violated principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merits, violating the principles of natural justice and the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to bring any evidence on record to prove that the assessee's share transactions were not genuine. The sale of shares was conducted through a recognized stock exchange with STT paid, and payments were received through banking channels.

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

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of their appeals. The revenue's appeals were also deemed withdrawn with liberty to recall if tax rate disputes remain unsettled. Consequently, all appeals and cross-objections were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient own funds and did not earn any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. Regarding foreign travel, the Tribunal found the expenses were incurred for business purposes, and the AO's disallowance was without basis.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. This was due to the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020".

The Tribunal held that since the foundation for the penalty (the addition to income) was removed by the subsequent order of the Assessing Officer, the penalty must also fall. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to delete the penalty.

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

The Tribunal held that if an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, a presumption arises that any investment or advance is made out of such funds. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12, the Tribunal set aside the disallowance of interest.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of their appeals. The revenue's appeals were also deemed withdrawn with liberty to recall if tax rate disputes remain unsettled. Consequently, all appeals and cross-objections were dismissed.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of their appeals. The revenue's appeals were also deemed withdrawn with liberty to recall if tax rate disputes remain unsettled. Consequently, all appeals and cross-objections were dismissed.

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 their appeals. The revenue's appeals were also deemed withdrawn with liberty to recall if tax rate disputes remain unsettled. Consequently, all appeals and cross-objections were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, a presumption arises that any investment or advance is made out of such funds. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12, the Tribunal set aside the disallowance of interest.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention regarding the tax effect threshold. The Departmental Representative also did not press the appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of their appeals and deemed the revenue's appeals as withdrawn, with liberty to recall if tax rate settlement fails. Consequently, all appeals and cross-objections were dismissed.

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

The Tribunal held that after considering the order of the CIT(A) and subsequent rectification by the TPO, the proposed adjustment fell within the 5% tolerance range, making it insignificant. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that after considering the order of the CIT(A) and subsequent rectification by the TPO, the proposed adjustment fell within the 5% tolerance range, making it insignificant. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The tribunal held that the notice issued under section 143(2) was barred by limitation as it was issued after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished. Consequently, the assessment was invalid, and no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was leviable.

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

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It followed its own previous orders and a Special Bench decision which held that sales tax subsidy is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax.

The tribunal acknowledged the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. This dismissal was conditional, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The tribunal held that the notice issued under section 143(2) was barred by limitation as it was issued after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished. Consequently, the assessment was invalid, and no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was leviable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application 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 dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. This dismissal was conditional, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not 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 in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had overlooked evidence submitted by the assessee. Consequently, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication after verifying the submitted evidence.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to approach the Tribunal if the dispute could not be settled under the scheme for technical reasons.

The Tribunal held that the rule of consistency should be followed, especially when there's no change in the business model and the 'other method' was accepted in subsequent years. The issue was remitted back to the TPO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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 due to the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the dispute is not settled as per the scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circulars that set monetary limits for appeals. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as academic.