ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2021

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 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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.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 allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and filing the necessary forms.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB was justified on cash payments exceeding sale consideration as it fell within the definition of undisclosed income. However, penalty on the Rs. 30 crores surrender was not justified as it related to a liability already recorded in the books.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Since the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee, it was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Since no one appeared for the assessee and there was no objection from the Revenue, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 68, finding that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence to explain the identity, creditworthiness of applicants, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal upheld this deletion.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, following cash basis accounting, is entitled to credit for the entire TDS amount in the year of deduction, irrespective of when the income is actually received. The lower authorities' orders were set aside.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Act, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that although res judicata does not strictly apply to income tax cases, the principle of consistency should be followed. Since the facts and issues were identical to previous years where the addition was deleted, the current addition was also deleted.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 68, finding that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence to explain the identity, creditworthiness of applicants, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal upheld this deletion.

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

The CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 68, finding that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence to explain the identity, creditworthiness of applicants, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal upheld this deletion.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's intent to resolve the dispute under the VSV Act. The assessee can seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Act.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 148 cannot be initiated for the same reasons when rectification proceedings under Section 154 have already been initiated but not concluded. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were not in accordance with the law because the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague and did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated, following a Delhi High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It reasoned that when the quantum additions are deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty levied on those additions has no basis to stand.

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

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s conclusion that no return was filed was incorrect, as the assessee produced evidence of filing the original return and paying admitted tax. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the expression 'a residential house' in Section 54 should be interpreted to mean a residential building, and the indefinite article 'a' does not restrict the claim to a single unit. The amendment to Section 54 effective from AY 2015-16 is not retrospective.

The Tribunal held that municipal rateable value is a recognized basis for determining Annual Letting Value (ALV) and that the AO's estimation based on an inspector's report was not justified. The basement's use for profession was also considered.

The Tribunal held that the expenses were backed by commercial expediency as the non-resident entities secured significant work orders for the assessee. It also found that disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not applicable due to the absence of a Fee for Technical Services (FTS) clause in the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Tribunal further held that the profits shown by the non-resident entity could not be added as diverted income in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the statute is clear that for carrying forward losses, the return must be filed within the due date specified under Section 139(1). The reasons for late filing, even if beyond the assessee's control, do not permit the claim.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the invoice raised for services included a 12% mark-up on business support costs. However, the assessee's claim could not be outrightly rejected.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the evidence submitted by the assessee and had passed a non-speaking order. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the 25% addition by the CIT(A) was on the higher side. Considering the assessee's lack of cooperation and involvement in bogus purchases, the Tribunal reduced the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's business was not permanently closed but was in a temporary lull due to ongoing litigation regarding compensation for its assets. Therefore, the expenses incurred for maintaining the establishment and pursuing the litigation were allowable.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) because the Section 263 order, which formed the basis for the AO's assessment, had been quashed by the ITAT and the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the assessment orders and additions made by the AO were rendered infructuous.