ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2021

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for confirming the disallowance was factually incorrect as the gross profit had actually increased, not decreased. The Tribunal held that an ad-hoc disallowance without proper basis is not permissible.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 18,49,549/- as it was a repeated addition from a Section 143(3) order, directing that the CIT(A)'s decision on that prior order would prevail. For AY 2013-14, the addition based on Excise Department information was deleted as it was not related to any seized material in a Section 153A assessment.

The Tribunal held that CAM charges paid by the assessee were not part of rent and thus tax was correctly deducted under Section 194C, not Section 194I. Consequently, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee-in-default for short deduction.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 18,49,549/- as it was a repeated addition from a Section 143(3) order, directing that the CIT(A)'s decision on that prior order would prevail. For AY 2013-14, the addition based on Excise Department information was deleted as it was not related to any seized material in a Section 153A assessment.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be calculated with reference to the average value of investments on which dividend income was actually received. The penalty proceedings were held to be premature.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be calculated with reference to the average value of investments on which dividend income was actually received. The penalty proceedings were held to be premature.

The Tribunal held that CAM charges paid by the assessee were not part of rent and thus tax was correctly deducted under Section 194C, not Section 194I. Consequently, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee-in-default for short deduction.

The Tribunal held that the license fee paid for the operation and usage of rights under the license, which did not create a capital asset, was revenue in nature. The decision was based on previous years' orders and High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the rectification order was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond four years from the end of the financial year in which the original assessment order was passed. However, on merits, following a High Court judgment, the disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition, as the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing supporting documents and the Assessing Officer failed to make independent inquiries to rebut the same. The Tribunal also noted that for one party, the Assessing Officer had not made any adverse findings.

The Tribunal found that the case was fit for remand. The assessee was directed to comply promptly with the notices issued by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the Delhi High Court's judgments in AIMIL Ltd. and Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., which allow deductions if payments are made before filing the return. The disallowance was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI, when deposited before the due date of filing the return, is not justified. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedents, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the payment for technical know-how was for facilitating the ongoing business and thus was a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to Section 14A disallowances and other additions.

The Tribunal held that the payment for technical know-how was for facilitating the ongoing business and thus was a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to Section 14A disallowances and other additions.

The Tribunal found that the assessee is involved in running a Gaushala for stray animals. However, registration was not granted due to the assessee's lack of proper compliance. The matter was remanded for fresh examination, with a direction for the assessee to comply promptly with the CIT(E)'s notices.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that withdrawals from the bank account should be considered as a set-off against the deposits. The CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition based on estimation was also noted. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's suo motu withdrawal of the Section 10A deduction claim, prior to detection by the AO, established its bonafides. A bonafide mistake in claiming a deduction, even if not available, does not warrant penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in AIMIL Ltd. and Pro Interactive Service, holding that delayed employee contributions to PF and ESI, if paid before the return filing due date, are allowable as expenditure. The disallowance was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the entire capital gains invested in the new property, including amounts paid from loans and for finishing work, are eligible for deduction under Section 54F. The CIT(A) erred in restricting the deduction based on the source of funds or specific expense categories.

The Tribunal held that the entire capital gains invested in the new property, including amounts paid from loans and for finishing work, are eligible for deduction under Section 54F. The CIT(A) erred in restricting the deduction based on the source of funds or specific expense categories.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Since the dispute was settled, the appeal filed by the revenue became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit stipulated by CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI, when deposited before the due date of filing the return, is not justified. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedents, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Pr.CIT had issued Form 5 reflecting the payment of due taxes. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeals concerning other grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeals concerning other grounds.

The Tribunal held that only real income, which has either accrued or been received, can be taxed. Since the borrower could not pay the interest and a substantial part was waived, it was not considered taxable income for the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeals concerning other grounds.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. This was in accordance with the assessee's application and the issuance of Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeals concerning other grounds.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied were set aside and remanded by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the impugned penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the Delhi High Court judgments in AIMIL Ltd. and Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. These judgments allow deduction for employee contributions if actually paid before the due date of filing the return, even if paid late according to the PF/ESIC Acts.

The Tribunal held that the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) in respect of disallowance for standard/sub-standard NPA assets was debatable, as the claim was made as per RBI guidelines. However, the penalty in respect of loss on sale of furniture and deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was sustained as these were rightly disallowed.

The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in AIMIL Ltd. and Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., which held that belatedly paid employee contributions to EPF/ESI, if deposited before filing the return, should be allowed as a deduction. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the assessee filed its return of income beyond the stipulated due date and Form 3CEB reported Nil international transactions, the assessee was not eligible to claim the carry forward of losses.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to properly verify the assessee's claim that sale consideration was received prior to the execution of sale deeds. The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's claim and set aside the addition.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn, noting that the Department had no objection and the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the 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 permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in adding the entire deposits under Section 68. The assessee is an accommodation entry provider and his real income is only commission. The addition was restricted to the commission earned.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal upheld the levy of interest under Section 234B, finding no reason to interfere with the order of the lower authorities. The assessee failed to provide any justification for why the interest was not leviable.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present submissions and evidence. The CIT(A) also did not provide the assessee with a copy of the remand report for rebuttal.

The ITAT held that it would be appropriate to grant the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.