ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2021

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) should have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before dismissing the appeal ex-parte. The appeal was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's activities were charitable and eligible for exemption under Section 11. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had complied with the requirements for carrying forward unutilized funds.

The Tribunal held that long-term capital loss arising from STT-paid share transactions should be allowed to be carried forward, as Section 74 of the Act cannot be rendered otiose. For the property sale, the Tribunal ruled that the holding period commences from the date of the initial agreement, thus qualifying the gains as long-term.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by directing the TPO to reconsider certain comparables and excluded others. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the exclusion of certain comparables by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of undisclosed income from the email conversation was not sustainable as the assessee denied receiving the money and the email was not seized from his premises. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the unsecured loans, proving the identity and capacity of the creditors.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of undisclosed income from the email conversation was not sustainable as the assessee denied receiving the money and the email was not seized from his premises. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the unsecured loans, proving the identity and capacity of the creditors.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) also did not adjudicate the issues independently on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that design charges for airport construction were revenue expenditure as they did not provide an enduring benefit. For capital gains, the Tribunal directed computation based on the higher of the sale value or stamp duty value, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal held that long-term capital loss arising from STT-paid share transactions should be allowed to be carried forward, as Section 74 of the Act cannot be rendered otiose. For the property sale, the Tribunal ruled that the holding period commences from the date of the initial agreement, thus qualifying the gains as long-term.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had commenced business operations as evidenced by obtaining the license, opening bank accounts, recruiting employees, receiving consultancy fees, and becoming a member of the Indian Energy Exchange. Therefore, disallowance of expenditure was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus regarding the advance by providing all particulars and refunding the amount. Regarding the ALV, the Tribunal found no basis for enhancement by the CIT(A) and set aside the addition. The architect fees were also allowed as a revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof by providing documentary evidence for the source and source of source of funds. Additions should be made in the hands of the share applicants if their source is questionable, not the assessee company.

The Tribunal held that the Bright Line Test (BLT) for computing the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of AMP transactions has been rejected by the Delhi High Court. Therefore, adjustments made on a protective basis using BLT are not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that design charges for airport construction were revenue expenditure as they did not provide an enduring benefit. For capital gains, the Tribunal directed computation based on the higher of the sale value or stamp duty value, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof by providing documentary evidence for the source and source of source of funds. Additions should be made in the hands of the share applicants if their source is questionable, not the assessee company.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by directing reconsideration of certain comparables and allowing the exclusion of others. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the exclusion of comparables by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that Section 68 was not applicable as the shares were issued for consideration other than cash, specifically for goodwill. However, it directed the AO to consider bringing the amount to tax in the hands of the recipient of the shares.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly considered the revised comparability adjustment for abnormal costs, as the claim was not made for the first time. The Tribunal found that the assessee's adjusted operating margin fell within the acceptable range, making the TPO's adjustment unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of the DTAA override Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, as Section 90(2) of the Act gives primacy to DTAAs when they are more beneficial to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to apply the beneficial rate of 10% as per the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of the DTAA override Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, as Section 90(2) of the Act gives primacy to DTAAs when they are more beneficial to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to apply the beneficial rate of 10% as per the DTAA.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, following its decision in a lead case. The specific reasoning for allowing the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt but implies the grounds raised by the assessee were accepted.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, following its decision in a lead case. The specific reasoning for allowing the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt but implies the grounds raised by the assessee were accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to 100% deduction under Section 80-IC for the assessment year in question due to substantial expansion, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Aarham Softronics. The ad-hoc disallowances made by the AO were also deleted as they were not based on specific reasons or evidence.

The Tribunal held that the interest income of Rs. 79,00,000/- was to be treated as income from other sources in the hands of the assessee, not business income. Additions for undisclosed interest and discrepancies were also upheld, with one addition being considered part of the already taxed interest income.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, following its decision in a lead case. The specific reasoning for allowing the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt but implies the grounds raised by the assessee were accepted.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, following its decision in a lead case. The specific reasoning for allowing the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt but implies the grounds raised by the assessee were accepted.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of the DTAA override Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, as Section 90(2) of the Act gives primacy to DTAAs when they are more beneficial to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to apply the beneficial rate of 10% as per the DTAA.

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 appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting to settle tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

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 held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars for filing appeals before the ITAT. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated without recording satisfaction in the searched person's file are null and void. The AO's failure to record satisfaction renders the assessment invalid.

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

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated without recording satisfaction in the searched person's file are null and void. The AO's failure to record satisfaction renders the assessment invalid.

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

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

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, with a caveat for reinstitution if the settlement is not finalized.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law as the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) was not mentioned in the penalty notice. Furthermore, the addition on which the penalty was imposed was later deleted by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and received Form-III. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and received Form-III. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.

The Tribunal held that if an original assessment order is inherently invalid or bad in law, its validity can be challenged even in collateral proceedings like a Section 263 revision. An invalid order cannot be revised to make it valid.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of commission paid to two ladies who confirmed the transactions through statements recorded by the AO. However, the disallowance for the other three ladies was confirmed due to lack of evidence. The issue of closing stock valuation was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had claimed a loss of Rs. 44,638 and was unaware of any client code modification. Evidence from the broker indicated no client code modification occurred in the assessee's account, and the AO failed to provide evidence of profit shifting or monetary benefits to the assessee.

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 Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

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