ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2021

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions on which the penalties were based had been deleted by a coordinate bench, there was no basis for levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made purely on suspicion without any material evidence to suggest the withdrawn cash was utilized for undisclosed purposes or that expenses were bogus. The timing of withdrawals also predated the demonetization period.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the revenue to approach the Tribunal if the tax effect exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the VSV Scheme. It also provided a condition for reinstitution of appeals if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the VSV Scheme. It also provided a condition for reinstitution of appeals if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee is directed to appear without adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, leading to an ex parte dismissal. To ensure justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce sufficient evidence for the interest deduction and for the non-receipt of rent. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination with specific directions to gather more information.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking in addressing the assessee's grounds. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The assessee's counsel requested permission to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted the request.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions contained factual information crucial to the matter. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect was indeed below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was held to be not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits due to the assessee's non-appearance. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

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

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the limb under which penalty was leviable. This defect vitiated the entire penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the limb under which penalty was leviable. This defect vitiated the entire penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount twice amounts to double taxation, especially when the assessee had already declared and paid taxes on the full amount in AY 2007-08 at the behest of tax authorities. The addition of interest on the foreign bank account was also deleted as there was no documentary evidence of interest earned.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount twice amounts to double taxation, especially when the assessee had already declared and paid taxes on the full amount in AY 2007-08 at the behest of tax authorities. The addition of interest on the foreign bank account was also deleted as there was no documentary evidence of interest earned.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction for disallowance under Section 14A, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on that ground. For book profit computation under Section 115JB, disallowances under Rule 8D are not permissible, but expenses for exempt income must be considered.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction for disallowance under Section 14A, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on that ground. For book profit computation under Section 115JB, disallowances under Rule 8D are not permissible, but expenses for exempt income must be considered.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount twice amounts to double taxation, especially when the assessee had already declared and paid taxes on the full amount in AY 2007-08 at the behest of tax authorities. The addition of interest on the foreign bank account was also deleted as there was no documentary evidence of interest earned.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to appear and present evidence without adjournment.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lacs are not maintainable. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.

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. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of re-computing the percentage of completion was revenue neutral as the entire revenue was offered for taxation in subsequent years. However, the disallowance of interest on loans was upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence.

The Tribunal, noting the absence of the assessee and the unserved notice, concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount twice amounts to double taxation, especially when the assessee had already declared and paid taxes on the full amount in AY 2007-08 at the behest of tax authorities. The addition of interest on the foreign bank account was also deleted as there was no documentary evidence of interest earned.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition for the unexplained advance, stating it was a debit entry not charged to the profit and loss account. Regarding the cash receipts, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the addition was based on unreliable loose sheets and lacked concrete evidence of cash exchange, especially since buyer inquiries confirmed no cash payments beyond agreement amounts.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2012-13 as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. The Tribunal also permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Rule 8D was unsustainable as he failed to record his satisfaction regarding the inadequacy of the assessee's suo motu disallowance. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the AO's disallowance.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2012-13 as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. The Tribunal also permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount twice amounts to double taxation, especially when the assessee had already declared and paid taxes on the full amount in AY 2007-08 at the behest of tax authorities. The addition of interest on the foreign bank account was also deleted as there was no documentary evidence of interest earned.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the details filed by the assessee and had wrongly stated that no supportive details were provided. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contributions to PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities is not sustainable.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee is directed to appear without adjournment.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2012-13 as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. The Tribunal also permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount twice amounts to double taxation, especially when the assessee had already declared and paid taxes on the full amount in AY 2007-08 at the behest of tax authorities. The addition of interest on the foreign bank account was also deleted as there was no documentary evidence of interest earned.

The Tribunal held that the periphery expenses were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, thus not satisfying Section 37(1). It also held that interest paid for late deposit of TDS is not a deductible business expenditure, following High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount twice amounts to double taxation, especially when the assessee had already declared and paid taxes on the full amount in AY 2007-08 at the behest of tax authorities. The addition of interest on the foreign bank account was also deleted as there was no documentary evidence of interest earned.

The Tribunal held that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) is chargeable to tax in the hands of the shareholder, not the company receiving the loan, especially when the recipient company is not a shareholder of the lender company. The addition made in the hands of the assessee was reversed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, following established precedents, as the assessee failed to appear and prosecute the appeal despite proper service attempts.

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

The Tribunal held that the transaction between the assessee and M/s. Bhushan Steel Limited was genuine, not a sham or paper transaction, as supported by documentation and a High Court decision. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation, upfront fee, and interest expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction for disallowance under Section 14A, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on that ground. For book profit computation under Section 115JB, disallowances under Rule 8D are not permissible, but expenses for exempt income must be considered.