ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2021

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction for disallowing expenses under Section 14A, thus deleting the disallowance. It also held that the refund of Excise duty was a capital receipt, not liable to tax.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This defect vitiated the AO's assumption of jurisdiction to levy the penalty.

The Tribunal held that expenses like shawls and bowls given to dealers and customers during festivals are not necessarily personal. Heavy sales promotion expenses alone do not justify disallowance, and expenses for meetings and conferences are part of marketing.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction for disallowing expenses under Section 14A, thus deleting the disallowance. It also held that the refund of Excise duty was a capital receipt, not liable to tax.

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

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the detailed reasons provided for sustaining the addition. The assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was void-ab-initio as the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of the cash. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition on account of stock discrepancy, finding that the CIT(A)'s reasoning was based on cogent evidence.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest on housing loan for office use back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide evidence regarding the professional use of the property and expenses incurred on specific portions.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement received by the assessee from its group entities, without any markup or profit element, was not in the nature of income and therefore not taxable. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition for stock difference was impermissible as the assessee maintained audited books of account and the addition was covered by a surrendered amount. The addition for provident fund contributions was also deleted as the deposit was made before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were not comprehensive enough to constitute 'reasons to believe' that income had escaped assessment. The mere fact of a bank deposit does not automatically imply escaped income without further inquiry.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the reassessment proceedings and the addition of Rs. 13,51,000/- under Section 69A. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry by calling for and examining party-wise details, bills, vouchers, and TDS certificates. The Tribunal found that issuing notices under Section 133(6) to job workers, who were often migrant laborers, would have been impractical and futile.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the reassessment proceedings and the addition of Rs. 13,51,000/- under Section 69A. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also confirmed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which sustained the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) had followed a previous order concerning the assessee's brother, who was a co-owner of the property. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this approach.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding settlement under the Vivaad se Vishwas Act and the issuance of Form No. 5. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made under section 36(1)(va) if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, following High Court decisions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere. It agreed that the purchases were accepted as genuine and the creditworthiness of the sundry creditors was not disproved. Regarding the interest, it was held to be compensatory and not penal, thus allowable.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission and the Revenue's no objection.

The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had determined whether the CSR expenses were for business purposes. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Gail (India) Ltd., the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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

The Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) if employees' contribution to PF and ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, following Delhi High Court decisions.

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

The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of bogus share capital and Rs. 10,000/- for commission. The assessee failed to substantiate the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transaction as required by Section 68.

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. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the assessee opting for the Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which was not considered by the lower authorities. Consequently, the issue of cash deposits was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. The reopening of assessment was deemed proper, and the additions made based on stock exchange information and capital investment were sustained.

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

The Tribunal found that the payees' certificates were similarly worded and lacked commercial exigencies for bearer cheque payments. Given the assessee's familiarity with banking transactions, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance.

The tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding settlement under the Vivaad se Vishwas Act. The Revenue did not object to the appeal being treated as withdrawn.

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

The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's decision to opt for the Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal, following its own consistent decisions for preceding assessment years, held that the technical know-how fees should be treated entirely as revenue expenditure. The capitalization of 25% of the fees was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which sustained the additions made by the AO. The assessee's claims for deduction under Section 54 and expenditure on improvements were rejected due to lack of evidence and proper documentation.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order upholding the disallowance under Section 14A as it was restricted to dividend earned and the denial of set-off of losses due to change in shareholding under Section 79.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the validity of re-assessment proceedings or the additions made. The assessee failed to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.