ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2021

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not admissible in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 based on third-party search material were void ab initio. The correct procedure would have been to initiate proceedings under Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under section 153A were initiated without incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the additions made and upheld by the CIT(A) were without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the penalty was deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal restored the issues related to service tax paid and miscellaneous advances written off back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to verify the assessee's claims and decide the matter in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under section 153A were initiated without incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the additions made and upheld by the CIT(A) were without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of addition for one investor, M/s M.L. Singhi & Associates Private Limited, as the CIT(A) had verified its assessment records which confirmed the investment. For the remaining investors, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found no evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, stating that a wrong claim of depreciation does not automatically amount to concealment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee-authority's activities were charitable and for the general public utility, not falling under the proviso to Section 2(15). This decision was based on previous ITAT and High Court rulings in the assessee's own case and similar development authorities.

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 Tribunal held that the property was purchased by a company, not the assessee, and directed deletion of that addition. For cash deposits, the Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 3.5 lacs, considering the lack of specific findings by the AO and the assessee's background. The credit card payment addition was deleted as it could be explained by the restricted cash deposit addition.

The Tribunal held that the allotment letter confers a right to hold the property, making it a capital asset from that date. Therefore, the gain should be treated as long-term capital gain, and indexation should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding interest on PDCs paid outside the books was covered by its own prior decisions, and thus upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. Similarly, the issue of additional payments violating the Stamp Duty Act was also decided in favor of the assessee based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that education cess and secondary & higher education cess are allowable deductions as they are not hit by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also allowed depreciation on UPS and printers at 60%.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal granted permission for withdrawal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient justification for the travelling expenses and demonstrated a clear nexus between borrowed funds and business activities. The disallowances made by the AO were deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities are charitable and entitled to exemption under Section 11. This was based on previous ITAT and High Court decisions that restored the assessee's registration under Section 12AA, finding its objects to be of general public utility.

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to avoid seeking adjournments without reasonable cause. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under section 153A were initiated without incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the additions made and upheld by the CIT(A) were without jurisdiction.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have taken a lenient view and condoned the delay, as the assessee demonstrated a reasonable cause. The delay was condoned, and the grounds of appeal were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit.

The Tribunal held that certain companies like Container Corporation of India and Sanco Trans Ltd. were not comparable due to significant differences in their business models and asset bases. It also directed the TPO to adopt a uniform policy regarding the treatment of Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) expense.

The Tribunal held that profit on sale/redemption of investments is not taxable in light of a jurisdictional High Court decision. It also deleted the disallowance for provision for standard assets, finding no enabling mechanism for such an addition. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider issues of carry forward of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circulars were binding on tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the payments for software were not royalty but business profits taxable under the India-China DTAA, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. The Tribunal also ruled in favour of the assessee on the issue of attribution of income.

The Tribunal held that the payments for software were not royalty but business profits taxable under the India-China DTAA, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. The Tribunal also ruled in favour of the assessee on the issue of attribution of income.

The Tribunal held that the payments for software were not royalty but business profits taxable under the India-China DTAA, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. The Tribunal also ruled in favour of the assessee on the issue of attribution of income.

The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Department were covered by a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, which relied on the Supreme Court judgment in ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT. The appeal of the Department was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee-authority's activities were charitable and for the general public utility, not falling under the proviso to Section 2(15). This decision was based on previous ITAT and High Court rulings in the assessee's own case and similar development authorities.

The Tribunal held that the belated payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, if made before the due date of filing the return of income, is not an incorrect claim and cannot be disallowed under Section 143(1). The adjustment for profit on sale of fixed assets was also deemed an erroneous grouping.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, noting that the issue of software supply being taxable as royalty had been settled in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court in the assessee's own case and similar matters.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order. The issue of depreciation on assets being allowable as application of income was settled in favor of the assessee, citing a Supreme Court judgment and a coordinate bench's decision.

The Tribunal held that education cess and secondary & higher education cess are allowable deductions as they are not hit by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also allowed depreciation on UPS and printers at 60%.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow verification of additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding VAT returns and sales tax, which the assessee claimed explained the difference in turnover reported in VAT and Income-tax returns.

The Tribunal held that education cess and secondary & higher education cess are allowable deductions as they are not hit by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also allowed depreciation on UPS and printers at 60%.

The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition is allowable as the assessee parted with rights in the land. It further held that Section 45(2) is not applicable as the assessee is in the healthcare business, not real estate, and the conversion to stock-in-trade is the assessee's prerogative. Therefore, indexation should be allowed till the assessment year of the taxable event.

The Tribunal held that profit on sale/redemption of investments is not taxable in light of a jurisdictional High Court decision. It also deleted the disallowance for provision for standard assets, finding no enabling mechanism for such an addition. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider issues of carry forward of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities are charitable and entitled to exemption under Section 11. This was based on previous ITAT and High Court decisions that restored the assessee's registration under Section 12AA, finding its objects to be of general public utility.

The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition is allowable as the assessee parted with rights in the land. It further held that Section 45(2) is not applicable as the assessee is in the healthcare business, not real estate, and the conversion to stock-in-trade is the assessee's prerogative. Therefore, indexation should be allowed till the assessment year of the taxable event.

The Tribunal held that amortization of investment is allowable for a life insurance company as per Section 44 read with the First Schedule. However, interest on TDS, unpaid bonus, and unpaid leave encashment are disallowable expenditures under Section 40(a) and Section 43B respectively.

The Tribunal held that education cess and secondary & higher education cess are allowable deductions as they are not hit by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also allowed depreciation on UPS and printers at 60%.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under section 153A were initiated without incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the additions made and upheld by the CIT(A) were without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under section 153A were initiated without incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the additions made and upheld by the CIT(A) were without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd., which held that belated payment of employee's PF and ESI contributions, if made before the ITR filing due date, should not be disallowed. The legislative intent is to allow deduction upon actual payment.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the Revenue's appeal as infructuous and the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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

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

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 dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior D.R. had no objection to this request.