ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2021

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. To ensure justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to comply promptly.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had found that the differences were explained by factors such as service tax not being income, receipts pertaining to previous assessment years, and interchangeability of receipts within the same group. The AO failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the CIT(A)'s detailed analysis.

The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court admitted the assessee's appeals on these issues as substantial questions of law, the matter was debatable. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) could not survive.

The Tribunal noted that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) had been set aside by a coordinate bench to the file of the AO for fresh examination. Therefore, the penalty order was also set aside to the AO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the business loss claim was not justified as it was in accordance with Accounting Standard-4 and arose from regular business litigation. The claim was related to compensation for injuries sustained by a customer in the past.

The Tribunal held that the set-off of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation against the surrendered income is allowable. This is based on the understanding that the amendment disallowing such set-off under Section 115BBE was prospective from AY 2017-18, and prior to that, set-off was permissible.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the TPO's subsequent order resolved the issue. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under section 153A are only permissible if based on incriminating material. Since no assessment was pending at the time of the search, the Assessing Officer could not deny the carry-forward of losses based on the delayed filing of the 153A return.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowances for vehicle and telephone expenses as they were made on an ad-hoc basis without pinpointing personal use. It also deleted the proportionate interest disallowance, finding that the assessee had sufficient own funds. The issue of unreported sales due to handling loss was remanded to the AO for reconciliation.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances by the CIT(A). It found that ad-hoc disallowances of business expenses were not justified without specific errors. For Section 14A, it followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that disallowance is not applicable if no exempt income is earned. Regarding interest expenditure, it agreed that capitalization to pre-operative expenses was correctly done.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to proportionate credit of TDS on deferred revenue as per Rule 37BA(3)(ii). It also held that license fees paid to the Department of Telecom were revenue expenditure, following previous decisions. The disallowance of the principal portion of lease obligation was also found to be unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to proportionate credit of TDS on deferred revenue as per Rule 37BA(3)(ii). It also held that license fees paid to the Department of Telecom were revenue expenditure, following previous decisions. The disallowance of the principal portion of lease obligation was also found to be unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to proportionate credit of TDS on deferred revenue as per Rule 37BA(3)(ii). It also held that license fees paid to the Department of Telecom were revenue expenditure, following previous decisions. The disallowance of the principal portion of lease obligation was also found to be unjustified.

The Tribunal held that non-filing of income tax returns is not a valid ground to reject an application for registration under Section 12A. The CIT(E) should have examined the charitable nature of the objects and genuineness of activities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to proportionate credit of TDS on deferred revenue as per Rule 37BA(3)(ii). It also held that license fees paid to the Department of Telecom were revenue expenditure, following previous decisions. The disallowance of the principal portion of lease obligation was also found to be unjustified.

The assessee requested to withdraw 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 penalty notices issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.

The Tribunal held that MAT credit should be allowed on the gross tax liability, including surcharge and education cess, as per the statutory ITR form and various High Court and ITAT judgments. The decision of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when the assessee has not earned any exempt income, following established High Court decisions. The Revenue failed to point out any fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings or provide contrary binding decisions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of 10% of expenses was made without any basis or concrete evidence. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had ignored the evidence produced by the assessee. Therefore, the ad-hoc disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowances for vehicle and telephone expenses as they were made on an ad-hoc basis without pinpointing personal use. It also deleted the proportionate interest disallowance, finding that the assessee had sufficient own funds. The issue of unreported sales due to handling loss was remanded to the AO for reconciliation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the nomenclature used by the assessee ('Reserve' instead of 'Provision') did not invalidate the claim for deduction. The Tribunal found no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the nomenclature used by the assessee ('Reserve' instead of 'Provision') did not invalidate the claim for deduction. The Tribunal found no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reliance on High Court decisions was sound, and the AO's contention that accumulated funds could only be used for specific purposes was not valid. No contrary binding decisions were presented by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reinvested the entire net consideration in acquiring new capital assets, fulfilling the conditions of Section 11(1A)(a)(i). Therefore, the capital gains should be deemed to have been applied for charitable purposes and no adjustment by the CPC was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the amount of exempt income received.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income is earned. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for expenses treated as capital in nature, following earlier orders. However, it remanded the issue of TDS disallowance for verification of garment purchases.

The Tribunal held that the discount passed on to customers, though on prior year purchases, crystallized in the current year when the decision was made and the liability arose. Therefore, the disallowance by revenue authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the discount passed on to customers, though on prior year purchases, crystallized in the current year when the decision was made and the liability arose. Therefore, the disallowance by revenue authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of bad debts was justified as the assessee had written them off in its books, following the Supreme Court's ruling in TRF Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s restriction of expense disallowance, finding that the AO was given an opportunity to comment on additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to proportionate credit of TDS on deferred revenue as per Rule 37BA(3)(ii). It also held that license fees paid to the Department of Telecom were revenue expenditure, following previous decisions. The disallowance of the principal portion of lease obligation was also found to be unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.

The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the significant delay were not tangible or valid. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made under Section 36(1)(viii) and Section 14A, following previous orders and binding precedents. The issue of deduction for education cess was remanded to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable. This was due to the inability to serve notices on the assessee and the fact that the appeals were filed by an individual whose authority to represent the company was suspended due to insolvency proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions related to the share premium received. The AO correctly made additions based on the evidence of accommodation entries.

The tribunal held that Education Cess is deductible as a business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The appeal regarding transfer pricing adjustments and circuit accruals was allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable. This was due to the inability to serve notices on the assessee and the fact that the appeals were filed by an individual whose authority to represent the company was suspended due to insolvency proceedings.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing the AO to re-examine the capacity utilization adjustment for personnel expenses. The claim for import duty adjustment was dismissed, following a previous tribunal ruling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable. This was due to the inability to serve notices on the assessee and the fact that the appeals were filed by an individual whose authority to represent the company was suspended due to insolvency proceedings.