ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2021

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the use of the trademark 'G.D. Goenka' by Shri Anjani Kumar Goenka and the commercial nature of the assessee's activities had been decided in favour of the assessee by the coordinate bench and confirmed by the Delhi High Court. The Revenue failed to point out any distinguishing facts for the current assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to provide speaking orders on the assessees' objections to the DVO report. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering these objections.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS) and Form-3 had been issued. Both parties agreed that the appeal had become infructuous due to the VSVS.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition made by the AO was already deleted by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year, the penalty does not survive. Therefore, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable.

The Tribunal held that the date of deposit of the cheque in the bank is the relevant date for determining payment under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, not the date of clearance. Since the cheques were deposited before the due date and were subsequently encashed, the deduction is allowable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that no addition can be made under Section 153A if no incriminating documents were found during the specific search action pertaining to the assessee. The reliance on the Kabul Chawla judgment was found to be squarely applicable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that no addition can be made under Section 153A if no incriminating documents were found during the specific search action pertaining to the assessee. The reliance on the Kabul Chawla judgment was found to be squarely applicable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that similar claims for depreciation had been allowed in previous assessment years for the assessee. The Revenue failed to present any distinguishing facts from earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was bad in law because it did not strike off either of the twin charges (concealment or inaccurate particulars) and did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked. The penalty order also failed to specify the exact charge.

The Tribunal held that since the issue was identical to earlier assessment years and had been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, and no distinguishing features or contrary decisions were presented by the Revenue, the appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that no addition can be made under Section 153A if no incriminating documents were found during the specific search action pertaining to the assessee. The reliance on the Kabul Chawla judgment was found to be squarely applicable.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, were subsequently deleted by the Tribunal itself, the penalty must also be deleted. The principle 'sublato fundamento cadit opus' (when the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls) was applied.

The Tribunal held that once a return is filed under Section 153A, it supersedes the original return filed under Section 139. Therefore, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) should be based on the Section 153A assessment, not the original return. The Tribunal also noted that additions for HSBC deposits and interest were deleted in prior proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that scrap sales are a direct byproduct of manufacturing activities and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80IC. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s reliance on the Delhi High Court judgment in Sadhu Forging Ltd.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivaad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and submitted the necessary forms. Consequently, the appeals were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was passed under section 143(3) and not section 144, it implied that subsequent compliance was considered good, and earlier defaults were ignored. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(b) was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and subsequent clarifications. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, following CBDT circulars regarding revised monetary limits for appeals.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill was not justified, following its own earlier orders. It also directed the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, finding that the AO had not recorded the necessary satisfaction. The additional ground regarding deduction of education cess was also allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's circular revised the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and applied it to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeal with a low tax effect was not maintainable.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and that there might be double additions. Considering the interest of justice and the possibility of the assessee being a facilitator of accommodation entries, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and that there might be double additions. Considering the interest of justice and the possibility of the assessee being a facilitator of accommodation entries, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to grant the assessee another opportunity to explain transactions and to delete any double additions. The AO was also instructed to consider the proviso to Section 68 for share application money from family members.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to grant the assessee another opportunity to explain transactions and to delete any double additions. The AO was also instructed to consider the proviso to Section 68 for share application money from family members.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to grant the assessee another opportunity to explain transactions and to delete any double additions. The AO was also instructed to consider the proviso to Section 68 for share application money from family members.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing him to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case. The AO was instructed to delete additions on account of cancelled cheques and double additions, and to exclude already taxed income.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing him to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case. The AO was instructed to delete additions on account of cancelled cheques and double additions, and to exclude already taxed income.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing him to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case and explain transactions. The AO was also instructed to delete additions on account of cancelled cheques and double additions, and to exclude already taxed income.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing him to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case. The AO was instructed to delete additions on account of cancelled cheques and double additions, and to exclude already taxed income.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing him to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case. The AO was instructed to delete additions on account of cancelled cheques and double additions, and to exclude already taxed income.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing him to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case. The AO was instructed to delete additions on account of cancelled cheques and double additions, and to exclude already taxed income.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and that there might be double additions. Considering the interest of justice and the possibility of the assessee being a facilitator of accommodation entries, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing him to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case. The AO was instructed to delete additions on account of cancelled cheques and double additions, and to exclude already taxed income.

The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed on this basis.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and that there might be double additions. Considering the interest of justice and the possibility of the assessee being a facilitator of accommodation entries, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, the assessee's claim, even if not accepted, did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, following the Reliance Petro Products case.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to grant the assessee another opportunity to explain transactions and to delete any double additions. The AO was also instructed to consider the proviso to Section 68 for share application money from family members.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and that there might be double additions. Considering the interest of justice and the possibility of the assessee being a facilitator of accommodation entries, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to grant the assessee another opportunity to explain transactions and to delete any double additions. The AO was also instructed to consider the proviso to Section 68 for share application money from family members.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to grant the assessee another opportunity to explain transactions and to delete any double additions. The AO was also instructed to consider the proviso to Section 68 for share application money from family members.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and that there might be double additions. Considering the interest of justice and the possibility of the assessee being a facilitator of accommodation entries, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and that there might be double additions. Considering the interest of justice and the possibility of the assessee being a facilitator of accommodation entries, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to grant the assessee another opportunity to explain transactions and to delete any double additions. The AO was also instructed to consider the proviso to Section 68 for share application money from family members.