ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2021

The Tribunal held that if the assessment order was passed mechanically without application of mind, as observed by the PCIT himself, then revision proceedings under Section 263 are not maintainable. The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's orders, restoring the original assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that if the assessment order was passed mechanically without application of mind, as observed by the PCIT himself, then revision proceedings under Section 263 are not maintainable. The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's orders, restoring the original assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for its own business in India do not constitute an international transaction under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the TPO wrongly invoked these provisions.

The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 80IC deduction to the AO, following its own precedents regarding substantial expansion and the Supreme Court's ruling. The addition for undisclosed income was also remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest earned from other co-operative societies. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow expenditure incurred in earning interest from commercial banks under Section 57.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed deposit of service tax is compensatory in nature and thus eligible for allowance as revenue expenditure. However, other grounds were either dismissed or partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that denying substantial justice due to a technical breach of e-filing rules is not appropriate. The CIT(Appeals)'s action of dismissing on technical grounds while also deciding on merit ex parte was also deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.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 interest paid on delayed deposit of service tax is compensatory in nature and thus eligible for allowance as revenue expenditure. However, other grounds were either dismissed or partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that if the assessment order was passed mechanically without application of mind, as observed by the PCIT himself, then revision proceedings under Section 263 are not maintainable. The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's orders, restoring the original assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that denying substantial justice due to a technical breach of e-filing rules is not appropriate. The CIT(Appeals)'s action of dismissing on technical grounds while also deciding on merit ex parte was also deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest earned from other co-operative societies. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow expenditure incurred in earning interest from commercial banks under Section 57.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed deposit of service tax is compensatory in nature and thus eligible for allowance as revenue expenditure. However, other grounds were either dismissed or partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest earned from other co-operative societies. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow expenditure incurred in earning interest from commercial banks under Section 57.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed deposit of service tax is compensatory in nature and thus eligible for allowance as revenue expenditure. However, other grounds were either dismissed or partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that TDS credit should be allowed only against income offered for taxation. The AO erred by adding the advance as income without proper examination. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

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 held that interest paid on delayed deposit of service tax is compensatory in nature and thus eligible for allowance as revenue expenditure. However, other grounds were either dismissed or partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmations from the investor and explanation of the source of funds, to establish the genuineness of the unsecured loans. The Tribunal found no corroborative material with the AO to doubt the transaction.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed deposit of service tax is compensatory in nature and thus eligible for allowance as revenue expenditure. However, other grounds were either dismissed or partly allowed.

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

The Tribunal held that bank guarantee charges are not subject to TDS under Section 194H and confirmed the deletion of disallowance. It also confirmed the deletion of disallowances related to additional depreciation, excess depreciation, and book profit calculation, following precedents. However, the judgment does not explicitly state the outcome for the Section 80IA(8) issue, implying it might have been decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that denying substantial justice due to a technical breach of e-filing rules is not appropriate. The CIT(Appeals)'s action of dismissing on technical grounds while also deciding on merit ex parte was also deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that if the assessment order was passed mechanically without application of mind, as observed by the PCIT himself, then revision proceedings under Section 263 are not maintainable. The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's orders, restoring the original assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following its own prior decisions and High Court rulings, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.

The Tribunal held that since the employees' contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance was warranted. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision which followed the Delhi High Court ruling in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd.

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

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

The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT, held that Section 14A applies only if exempt income is actually received or receivable. Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted.

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

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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

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 consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.

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 accepted the assessee's explanation for cash deposits and gifts, allowing a significant portion of the disputed amount. The addition on account of rental income from gym equipment was set aside, and the addition on professional income was restricted.

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 appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

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

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

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.