ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2021

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of handling, storage, and transportation of food grains, including de-husking paddy, qualify for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) as an integrated business aimed at enhancing food security. Disallowances under Section 14A and prior period expenses were also deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable because the appeals were filed by an individual who, according to a previous order of a coordinate bench, lacked the locus standi to file them. The company was also undergoing insolvency proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of handling, storage, and transportation of food grains, including de-husking paddy, qualify for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) as an integrated business aimed at enhancing food security. Disallowances under Section 14A and prior period expenses were also deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable because the appeals were filed by an individual who, according to a previous order of a coordinate bench, lacked the locus standi to file them. The company was also undergoing insolvency proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide confirmation from the lender and proof of the source of funds for the Rs. 29,00,000/- loan. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that mere banking transactions are insufficient to prove creditworthiness or genuineness.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly considered the ITSC order, which had accepted the assessee's explanation for share capital introduction through inflated purchases. Therefore, no further addition was warranted on this issue.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of segregation of the purchase price between land and building, and given that the purchase price was composite, the entire depreciation claim on the premises is allowable. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order and the additions made therein have been deleted, the penalty levied would not survive. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned penalty.

The Tribunal held that a trust for the benefit of a section of the public, such as employees, can be considered charitable. However, it noted that the CIT(E) had not fully examined the trust's actual activities, sources of funds, and any potential benefits to the company.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under section 274 was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty levied was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal held that AS-7 is applicable to construction contractors, not real estate developers. The assessee's method of recognizing revenue upon execution of sale deeds is valid and consistently followed, having been accepted by the Revenue in prior and subsequent years.

The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeals as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeals as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the first appeal. For the second appeal, it deleted the penalty related to the jewellery addition as the addition itself was deleted, but sustained the penalty related to the confirmed cash addition.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had partly confirmed additions without providing the assessee with an effective opportunity to be heard and address the deficiencies. The matter was set aside to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.

The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for these assessment years had been set aside by a previous order. Therefore, the penalty orders, which were consequential to the quantum additions, were also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the right of appeal should not be taken away for a technical breach. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) with directions to consider the electronic appeal filed and decide on merits, or if not acted upon, allow the assessee to file electronically with condonation of delay.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for these assessment years had been set aside by a previous order. Therefore, the penalty orders, which were consequential to the quantum additions, were also set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for these assessment years had been set aside by a previous order. Therefore, the penalty orders, which were consequential to the quantum additions, were also set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rendered infructuous.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the first appeal. For the second appeal, the penalty related to the deleted jewellery addition was deleted, while the penalty related to the confirmed cash addition was sustained.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses, citing the rule of consistency with the previous assessment year and the RBI's findings on deficiencies in vouchers. The Tribunal also noted that expenses related to loans disbursed in violation of RBI rules are not allowable.

The Tribunal held that since the group company had already paid taxes on the inflated purchases, re-introducing this cash as unsecured loans should not be taxed again. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that given the liberty granted by the CIT(Exemption) to apply afresh and the peculiar facts, the registration should have been granted from the earlier assessment year requested by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any specific provision in the Income Tax Act for determining notional interest on presumptive basis, the AO's addition was not justified. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any specific provision in the Income Tax Act for determining notional interest on presumptive basis, the AO's addition was not justified. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any specific provision in the Income Tax Act for determining notional interest on presumptive basis, the AO's addition was not justified. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that as the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was quashed by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, the penalty appeal did not survive. The reassessment itself was found to be void ab initio.

The Tribunal, following its own prior decisions on identical facts, held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the enhanced cost due to exchange rate fluctuation. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the proportionate disallowance of Section 80-IA deduction was not justified, following its own prior decision. It also directed the deletion of disallowances for payments to FTOs and DTOs, finding them to be for services and not royalty, again relying on previous rulings. The Tribunal directed the AO to expeditiously decide the rectification application for short grant of TDS credit.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back. The CIT(A) was directed to first decide the jurisdictional challenge raised by the assessee and then proceed to decide the other issues on merits.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 due to the low tax effect. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal noted the contents of the email and decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The decision was announced in open court.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Ld. DR could not provide any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal, relying on previous decisions and a Supreme Court judgment, held that the assessee does not have a business connection in India nor a Permanent Establishment (PE) under the India-Mauritius DTAA. Consequently, no profit attribution is warranted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to foreign tax credit as per the India-Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, following the precedent set by the Karnataka High Court in the Wipro case. The Tribunal also directed the AO to recalculate the MAT liability using the correct statutory rate.

The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) order was not sustainable as it violated Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by failing to state the points for determination, the decision, and the reasons for the decision. The tribunal also noted the assessee's continued non-representation before the ITAT.

The Tribunal found that the facts were not clearly established regarding the distance from the municipal limits. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after the assessee provides evidence.

The Tribunal held that the proportionate disallowance of Section 80-IA deduction was not justified, following its own prior decision. It also directed the deletion of disallowances for payments to FTOs and DTOs, finding them to be for services and not royalty, again relying on previous rulings. The Tribunal directed the AO to expeditiously decide the rectification application for short grant of TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that the proportionate disallowance of Section 80-IA deduction was not justified, following its own prior decision. It also directed the deletion of disallowances for payments to FTOs and DTOs, finding them to be for services and not royalty, again relying on previous rulings. The Tribunal directed the AO to expeditiously decide the rectification application for short grant of TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, regarding CSR expenses, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2013-14. It also held that mere addition based on internal AIR data for interest on refund is not sustainable if Form 26AS does not reflect it.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not legally sustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not legally sustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not legally sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance for ESOP compensation, agreeing with the CIT(A) that it was an employee cost. For Section 14A, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification regarding income from growth funds.