ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2021

The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been granted at least one last opportunity to represent their case. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had offered the difference for taxation before it was pointed out by the Assessing Officer, thus it was not a case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was defective as it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This defect vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO to levy the penalty.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, citing the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed not to seek adjournments unless absolutely necessary.

The Tribunal restored the issue of penalty to the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh after the quantum of addition is decided. This is because the quantum addition itself was set aside by the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The assessee can seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, relying on the binding precedent of Kabul Chawla. The pendency of an appeal by the Revenue before the Supreme Court did not invalidate the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that providing hostel facilities to students is an integral part of educational activities and not a business activity. Therefore, the surplus generated from hostels should not be treated as business income.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in the absence of any objection from the Revenue.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.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 filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution, without properly considering the adjournment application and the assessee's grievance, resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal, following its previous decisions for earlier assessment years on identical facts, held that the entire interest paid on borrowed funds used for school building construction is allowable. Therefore, no disallowance is warranted.

The Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal to be frivolous and infructuous. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal, meaning the Revenue should not have filed an appeal against the deletion of penalty.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The assessee was directed to appear and substantiate their claims without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty. It noted that the quantum addition for notional interest was deleted by the Tribunal and upheld by the Delhi High Court, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty. It noted that the quantum addition for notional interest was deleted by the Tribunal and upheld by the Delhi High Court, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Directors of the company undergoing insolvency are not maintainable. The appeals filed by the Revenue are also dismissed due to the moratorium under IBC.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Directors of the company undergoing insolvency are not maintainable. The appeals filed by the Revenue are also dismissed due to the moratorium under IBC.

The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to reconsider the applications afresh. The CIT(E) was instructed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that since the same AO had accepted similar loan transactions from Pankaj Kapoor in a prior assessment year, the identity and capacity of the lender should not be questioned. The assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since a subsequent CBDT notification covered the expenses incurred outside India, the disallowance was incorrect. Similarly, following a prior ITAT ruling that foreign contributions were not subject to FCRA in this case, the addition was also deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty. It noted that the quantum addition for notional interest was deleted by the Tribunal and upheld by the Delhi High Court, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty. It noted that the quantum addition for notional interest was deleted by the Tribunal and upheld by the Delhi High Court, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Directors of the company undergoing insolvency are not maintainable. The appeals filed by the Revenue are also dismissed due to the moratorium under IBC.

The Tribunal, following its previous decisions for earlier assessment years on identical facts, held that the entire interest paid on borrowed funds used for school building construction is allowable. Therefore, no disallowance is warranted.

The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, relying on the percentage completion method and CBDT instructions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the AO to verify compliance with Section 80IB(10) requirements.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Directors of the company undergoing insolvency are not maintainable. The appeals filed by the Revenue are also dismissed due to the moratorium under IBC.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable because the AO's assessment order did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the show cause notice did not strike off the inapplicable portion of Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the assessment orders bad in law. The Tribunal agreed that the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 144C for eligible companies and that the satisfaction note for invoking Section 153C was not properly recorded, rendering the assessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable because the AO's assessment order did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the show cause notice did not strike off the inapplicable portion of Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the facts were identical to previous assessment years where the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding proportionate deduction for eligible flats and compliance with commercial area limits.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Directors of the company undergoing insolvency are not maintainable. The appeals filed by the Revenue are also dismissed due to the moratorium under IBC.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Directors of the company undergoing insolvency are not maintainable. The appeals filed by the Revenue are also dismissed due to the moratorium under IBC.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty. It noted that the quantum addition for notional interest was deleted by the Tribunal and upheld by the Delhi High Court, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the ITAT. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was a developer and met the built-up area conditions. However, the issue regarding the completion certificate was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to additional evidence.

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

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the cash method of accounting, consistently followed by the assessee, cannot be rejected without cogent reasons. Previous decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier years were relied upon.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. The assessee is directed to appear and present its case without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the chargeability of capital gains tax in this scenario, where the distance of the land from municipal limits changed due to revised notifications, is a debatable issue. They also noted that the assessee's claim was supported by a Tehsildar's certificate, and there was no evidence of malafide intention.

The assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, to settle the dispute. The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the Revenue due to the settlement under the scheme.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate the share premium. This was due to non-compliance before the AO and new arguments presented before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that since the reassessment proceedings themselves were previously quashed by the Tribunal, the additions made during those proceedings do not survive. Consequently, the penalty levied based on these additions also has no basis.

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