ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2021

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed the necessary forms. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with liberty to restore it if the dispute was not settled under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the appeal on merits, especially given the circumstances of the legal heirs' lack of knowledge. The assessment was also questioned for not serving notice to all legal heirs and for procedural irregularities.

The Tribunal held that the payment for acquiring exhibition rights of cinematographic films, including a minimum guarantee amount, does not fall under the definition of 'Royalty' as per Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, TDS was not applicable.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the sum received from Tabcorp was revenue in nature and taxable. It also upheld the addition of interest income on intercorporate deposits, stating that accrual basis accounting requires taxation of accrued interest even if not received. The disallowance of depreciation on assets in sealed premises was deleted for AY 2009-10.

The Tribunal held that the sum received from Tabcorp was revenue in nature and taxable. It also upheld the addition of interest income on intercorporate deposits, stating that accrual basis accounting requires taxation of accrued interest even if not received. The disallowance of depreciation on assets in sealed premises was deleted for AY 2009-10.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) was not proper due to different products and raw materials used by the two entities. Purchases from sister concerns were also not an issue as no purchases were made from Heena Industries Pvt. Ltd. by Heena Export Corporation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made full disclosures and did not conceal or furnish inaccurate particulars of income. Relying on a coordinate bench decision and Supreme Court judgment, the penalty was deleted.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act and principles of natural justice by passing an ex parte order. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) was not proper due to different products and raw materials used by the two entities. Purchases from sister concerns were also not an issue as no purchases were made from Heena Industries Pvt. Ltd. by Heena Export Corporation.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) was not proper due to different products and raw materials used by the two entities. Purchases from sister concerns were also not an issue as no purchases were made from Heena Industries Pvt. Ltd. by Heena Export Corporation.

The Tribunal held that the wind power generation plant was commissioned during the financial year based on evidence like dispatch challans, invoices, and a commissioning certificate. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for depreciation.

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

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 their appeals. Consequently, both the Revenue's and the Assessee's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the Assessee's request for withdrawal of their appeals. Consequently, both the Revenue's and the Assessee's 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 accepted the Assessee's request for withdrawal of their appeals. Consequently, both the Revenue's and the Assessee's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of transportation expenses was made on an ad-hoc basis and was not justified. It further held that computer accessories and peripherals like printers are integral parts of the computer system and eligible for 60% depreciation, following the Delhi High Court ruling.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, 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 disallowance of transportation expenses was made on an ad-hoc basis and was not justified. It further held that computer accessories and peripherals like printers are integral parts of the computer system and eligible for 60% depreciation, following the Delhi High Court ruling.

The Tribunal accepted the Assessee's request for withdrawal of their appeals. Consequently, both the Revenue's and the Assessee's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the Assessee's request for withdrawal of their appeals. Consequently, both the Revenue's and the Assessee's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was indeed time-barred and issued by a non-jurisdictional officer, rendering the original assessment order void-ab-initio. Consequently, the revision order under Section 263 was also a nullity.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed. However, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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. Consequently, both the Revenue's and the Assessee's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the Assessee's request for withdrawal of their appeals. Consequently, both the Revenue's and the Assessee's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the tax involved was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, which is the limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 for filing appeals before the ITAT.

The Tribunal held that bonus and ex-gratia payments paid before the due date of filing the return are allowable deductions. It also upheld the deletion of additions related to audit fees and dividend income. However, the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had not cooperated with lower authorities, substantive justice required an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the tax involved was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, which is the limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 for filing appeals before the ITAT.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed deposit of TDS is not an allowable deduction as it is not related to the business of the assessee. The decision followed the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the assessee had resolved the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute was not ultimately resolved.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of bad debts, finding that the conditions under Section 36(2) were met. It also confirmed that expenditures on land acquisition and service connections for a project were revenue in nature for the assessee, as they were a contractor and the corresponding income was taxed. The write-back of provisions was also allowed as they were not allowed as deductions in earlier years.

The Tribunal held that income derived from trust property should be computed on sound commercial principles, which includes the carry forward and set-off of deficits. Relying on High Court decisions, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the carry forward of the net deficit.

The Tribunal held that the assessments made under Section 153C were barred by limitation as the relevant period for determining the six preceding assessment years should commence from the date of handing over of documents or recording of satisfaction, not the date of the search. Consequently, the assessments for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 were beyond the permissible six-year period.

The Tribunal held that the assessments made under Section 153C were barred by limitation as the relevant period for determining the six preceding assessment years should commence from the date of handing over of documents or recording of satisfaction, not the date of the search. Consequently, the assessments for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 were beyond the permissible six-year period.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not based on incriminating material. The documents found did not pertain to the impugned assessment years or were already part of the assessee's regular books of account, thus not indicating undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not based on incriminating material. The documents found did not pertain to the impugned assessment years or were already part of the assessee's regular books of account, thus not indicating undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that material found during the first search cannot be used to make additions in assessment proceedings consequent to a second search. Blank signed transfer forms and blank cheque books do not constitute incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that material found during the first search cannot be used to make additions in assessment proceedings consequent to a second search. Blank signed transfer forms and blank cheque books do not constitute incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's P&L account was prepared in accordance with the Companies Act, considering the Supreme Court's directions and relevant accounting standards for prior period expenses. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was therefore unjustified.

The Tribunal held that material found during the first search cannot be used to make additions in assessment proceedings consequent to a second search. Blank signed transfer forms and blank cheque books do not constitute incriminating material.