ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2021

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the disallowance was restricted to the actual dividend income earned.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS) to settle the disputes. Both parties agreed to this, and the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that most additions were not based on incriminating material seized during the search. For bogus purchases, the Tribunal noted a factual inaccuracy in the AO's assessment, which was corrected in the remand report, invalidating the basis for the addition.

The Tribunal held that a subsequent Supreme Court judgment interpreting the law constitutes a 'mistake apparent from record' for rectification purposes, and that capital receipts are to be excluded from book profit computation under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that a subsequent Supreme Court judgment interpreting the law constitutes a 'mistake apparent from record' for rectification purposes. Consequently, excise duty subsidies are capital receipts and should be excluded from book profit computation under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that a subsequent Supreme Court judgment clarifying the law constitutes a 'mistake apparent from record' for rectification purposes. It further held that excise duty subsidies are capital receipts and should be excluded when computing book profit under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that a subsequent Supreme Court judgment interpreting the law constitutes a 'mistake apparent from record' for rectification purposes. Consequently, excise duty subsidies are capital receipts and should be excluded from book profit computation under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vague and ambiguous, as they did not clearly state under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 were vague and ambiguous. Following precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Tribunal concluded that such defective notices render the subsequent penalty proceedings unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vague and ambiguous, as they did not clearly state under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vague and ambiguous, as they did not clearly state under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being imposed. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being imposed. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being imposed. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being imposed. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being imposed. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was primarily because the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals, and the Revenue's representative did not press the appeal.

The ITAT held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, following the principle of natural justice and a justice-oriented approach. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being imposed. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being imposed. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, and consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous. Both parties agreed with this course of action.

The Tribunal held that under Article 11(1) of the India-Cyprus DTAA, interest income is taxable only on a receipt basis. Therefore, notional or hypothetical interest cannot be brought to tax, and no transfer pricing adjustment can be made on such amounts.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO with necessary evidence to substantiate her claim.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the facts were identical to a previous assessment year where the issues were decided in favor of the assessee. Both parties agreed that the matter was covered by a previous ITAT order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS) to settle the disputes. Both parties agreed to this, and the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was ultimately framed at 'nil' income by the AO after the ITAT's order, the penalty levied by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty was ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was ultimately framed at 'nil' income by the AO after the ITAT's order, the penalty levied by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty was ordered to be deleted.

The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission regarding the closure of operations and the desire to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that it no longer wishes to pursue the litigation in India. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission regarding the closure of operations and the desire to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that most additions were not based on incriminating material seized during the search. For bogus purchases, a factual inaccuracy in the AO's assessment was corrected via a remand report, invalidating the basis for the addition.

The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission regarding the closure of operations and the desire to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

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 on this ground.

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

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the legal heir to file the appeal electronically. The CIT(A) was also directed to condone any delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. It directed the CIT(A) to consider additional evidence filed by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable for interest under sections 234B and 234C as the cheques were deposited before the due date and the delay in clearance was due to bank holidays, as per CBDT Circular No. 676. The addition for AY 2009-10 was deleted as the mismatch in interest income was due to accounting practices and was revenue-neutral.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable for interest under sections 234B and 234C as the cheques were deposited before the due date, and any delay in clearance was due to bank holidays, as per CBDT Circular No. 676. The addition on account of AIR data mismatch was also deleted, considering the assessee's consistent accounting policy and the revenue-neutral nature of the difference.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable for interest under sections 234B and 234C as the cheques were deposited before the due date, and any delay in clearance was due to bank holidays, as per CBDT Circular No. 676. The addition on account of AIR data mismatch was also deleted, considering the assessee's consistent accounting policy and the revenue-neutral nature of the difference.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme for settlement of pending tax disputes. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme for settlement of pending tax disputes. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as infructuous, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme. The revenue had no objection to this course of action.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as infructuous, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme. The revenue had no objection to this course of action.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.