ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2021

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was imposed had been deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty could not survive. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal restored the issues back to the CIT(A) with a direction to consider the assessee's written submissions and grant a reasonable opportunity. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not satisfy the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for bank charges was not sustainable, relying on a High Court decision. It also held that 'Education Cess' is deductible as a business expenditure under Section 37.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made under Section 14A for the purpose of Section 115JB, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal on other grounds, considering the past history and the undisputed legal position.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not validly served on the assessee within the statutory time limit. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were void ab initio, and the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the mere dispatch of the penalty order via speed post without proof of acknowledgement of service does not amount to valid service. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

The Tribunal restored the issues back to the CIT(A) with a direction to consider the assessee's written submissions and grant a reasonable opportunity. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not satisfy the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal restored the issues back to the CIT(A) with a direction to consider the assessee's written submissions and grant a reasonable opportunity. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not satisfy the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the software sales do not constitute royalty income taxable in India, relying on Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal also discussed the Permanent Establishment (PE) issue, noting that R&D centers do not give rise to a PE.

The Tribunal held that the software sales do not constitute royalty income taxable in India, relying on Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal also discussed the Permanent Establishment (PE) issue, noting that R&D centers do not give rise to a PE.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) could not be upheld. The assessee had discharged its initial onus, and the revenue failed to provide evidence or cross-examination opportunities to prove the transactions were not genuine.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the issues had become academic. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to allow for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the issues had become academic. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the issues had become academic. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the issues had become academic. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee's counsel, under instructions, stated that they did not wish to press the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal, considering the submission, dismissed the appeal.

The assessee's counsel, under instructions, stated that they did not wish to press the grounds of appeal. The ITAT, in view of this submission, dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the issues had become academic. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the issues had become academic. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This withdrawal was permitted in view of the scheme prescribed under Rule 11UE and Rule 11UF of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, related to settling disputes on indirect transfers.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition for consumption debtors, citing previous consistent rulings. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income. The leave and encashment issue was set aside for verification of actual payment.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Arham Softronics, held that if substantial expansion is carried out, the year of expansion becomes the 'initial assessment year' for 100% deduction. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to 100% deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition for consumption debtors, citing previous consistent rulings. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income. The leave and encashment issue was set aside for verification of actual payment.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and the Ld. Sr. DR's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation. The amendments to Section 201(3) by various Finance Acts were considered, and it was found that the order was passed beyond the prescribed time limits.

The Tribunal held that since the same additions made in the original assessment order under Section 143(3) were not sustained in previous appellate proceedings (CIT(A) and ITAT), they could not be sustained again in the assessment under Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities fall under 'Education' as defined in Section 2(15) and not 'Advancement of any other object of General Public Utility'. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that since the amount was already accepted and taxed in the hands of M/s Javi Homes Pvt. Ltd., it cannot be taxed again in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the addition made in the assessee's hands was liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to address the procedural violations alleged by the assessee and pass an order in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to address the procedural violations alleged by the assessee and pass an order in accordance with law after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had already examined the claim with supporting evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the issue regarding substantial expansion and deduction under Section 80IC was settled by the Supreme Court in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technicality without considering the merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue for re-adjudication.

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

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the carry forward of excess application of income from earlier years and the claim for depreciation. The amendment restricting depreciation for trusts was effective from AY 2015-16, not applicable to the current AY 2014-15.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of AMP expenses. The decision followed the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, as no distinguishing features or contrary rulings from higher forums were presented.

The Tribunal held that since the order which initiated the current proceedings was quashed, the present appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous and lacks merit.

The ITAT set aside the impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh de novo order. This was to be done after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as agreed by both parties.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal accepted the request.

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 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeal was to be withdrawn due to a low tax effect, falling below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT circulars.

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 held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the subsidy claim on merits, referencing the Supreme Court's clarification on the Tribunal's power to admit new claims. It also followed its earlier decisions on other grounds related to aircraft expenditure and commission payments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the subsidy claim on merits, referencing the Supreme Court's clarification on the Tribunal's power to admit new claims. It also followed its earlier decisions on other grounds related to aircraft expenditure and commission payments.

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

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the subsidy claim on merits, referencing the Supreme Court's clarification on the Tribunal's power to admit new claims. It also followed its earlier decisions on other grounds related to aircraft expenditure and commission payments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the subsidy claim on merits, referencing the Supreme Court's clarification on the Tribunal's power to admit new claims. It also followed its earlier decisions on other grounds related to aircraft expenditure and commission payments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the subsidy claim on merits, referencing the Supreme Court's clarification on the Tribunal's power to admit new claims. It also followed its earlier decisions on other grounds related to aircraft expenditure and commission payments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the subsidy claim on merits, referencing the Supreme Court's clarification on the Tribunal's power to admit new claims. It also followed its earlier decisions on other grounds related to aircraft expenditure and commission payments.