ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2022

The Tribunal held that the MCI regulations and CBDT circulars were not applicable for the relevant assessment year, thus allowing the expenses related to CME. It also ruled that interest on delayed service tax payment is compensatory, not penal, and therefore deductible under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal referred the duty drawback issue back to the AO for reconciliation, stating it was a matter of reconciliation. Regarding the disallowance of telephone and internet expenses, the Tribunal found it to be without material on record and liable to be deleted.

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 The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the appeal. The Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme provided a mechanism for settling tax arrears, rendering the appeal moot.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in applying the yardsticks of Section 10(23C)(iiiab) to an application under Section 12AA. The Tribunal found that HARSAC's activities, including providing specialized post-graduate degree courses in collaboration with a university, constituted education for charitable purposes under Section 2(15).

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the development of infrastructure facilities and was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, following previous co-ordinate bench decisions. For Section 14A disallowances, the Tribunal directed the AO to determine the disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D(2)(ii) for certain assessment years.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the assessee's successful settlement of the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding Section 40(a)(ia) was decided in favor of the assessee during the set-aside proceedings. Regarding the provision for warranty, the Tribunal found that the PCIT's reason for setting aside was that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not considered the case history, but since prior Tribunal orders were in favor of the assessee, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that while the reassessment proceedings were valid, the addition on merits was not sustainable due to a violation of natural justice. The assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the entry operator whose statement was used against them.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3)/153A, and in view of previous judgments on identical facts, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be sustained. The Tribunal found no willful default or non-cooperative attitude from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3)/153A, and in view of previous judgments on identical facts, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be sustained. The Tribunal found no willful default or non-cooperative attitude from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the issue of in whose hands the deemed dividend should be taxed was highly debatable, the assessee's act of not including it in income did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(b) cannot be sustained when the assessment is completed under section 143(3), as it implies that subsequent compliances were considered sufficient. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions where similar penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(b) cannot be sustained when the assessment is completed under section 143(3), as it implies that subsequent compliances were considered sufficient. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions where similar penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3)/153A, and in view of previous judgments on identical facts, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be sustained. The Tribunal found no willful default or non-cooperative attitude from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the issue of in whose hands the deemed dividend should be taxed was highly debatable, the assessee's act of not including it in income did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(b) cannot be sustained when the assessment is completed under section 143(3), as it implies that subsequent compliances were considered sufficient. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions where similar penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the issue of in whose hands the deemed dividend should be taxed was highly debatable, the assessee's act of not including it in income did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(b) cannot be sustained when the assessment is completed under section 143(3), as it implies that subsequent compliances were considered sufficient. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions where similar penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that substantial expansion can indeed shift the initial assessment year for claiming deduction under Section 80-IC. This decision followed the Supreme Court's affirmation of the Himachal Pradesh High Court's ruling in Stovekraft India.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of withdrawing and keeping cash at home due to old age and ailments was plausible and supported by his withdrawal patterns. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that for assessments under Section 153C, there must be a direct nexus between the incriminating material found during the search and the additions made. It also relied on High Court judgments that treated forfeiture of share warrants as a capital transaction, not business income.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, which had become final before the search, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the scope of Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the AO had conducted an inquiry and accepted the assessee's explanation based on the evidence provided, and the PCIT did not conduct any independent inquiry to disprove the assessee's claims.

The Tribunal held that the issues were squarely covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case. These decisions established that the assessee's functions were not in the nature of trade or business, and therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the issues were squarely covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case. These decisions established that the assessee's functions were not in the nature of trade or business, and therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, which had become final before the search, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the scope of Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that for assessments under Section 153C, there must be a direct nexus between the incriminating material found during the search and the additions made. It also relied on High Court judgments that treated forfeiture of share warrants as a capital transaction, not business income.

The Tribunal found the assessee's filter of 10% export sales to be reasonable, especially considering the assessee's low export turnover and the DRP's acceptance of a similar filter in a prior year. The TPO's rejection of this filter was deemed inappropriate.

The Tribunal, following its own prior decision for an earlier assessment year, directed the Assessing Officer (AO)/TPO to reconsider the comparables used for determining the arm's length price of AMP expenditure. The AO/TPO was instructed to select comparables that are functionally similar to the assessee's distribution business and to provide a fair opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, which had become final before the search, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the scope of Section 153A.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that Form No. 4 had been issued by the Department. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that substantial expansion can indeed shift the initial assessment year for claiming deduction under Section 80-IC. This decision followed the Supreme Court's affirmation of the Himachal Pradesh High Court's ruling in Stovekraft India.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, which had become final before the search, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the scope of Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not leviable because the AO did not specifically draw the assessee's attention to the provisions of Section 271AAA and ask for the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived during the statement recording.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that income from hiring furniture, fixtures, and generators should be treated as business income. Consequently, related expenses like salary and staff welfare were allowed.

The Tribunal held that since the order under section 263 of the Act was already quashed, the consequential order passed by the AO became infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the assessee's grounds of appeal. This was due to the assessee's non-cooperative approach and failure to provide necessary documentation or submissions before the lower authorities and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs, as clarified by CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for telephone expenses, finding them to be wholly and exclusively for business purposes. For entertainment expenses, the addition was restricted. The addition under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted as tax was not deductible at source on the payments made.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was held to be not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merits due to the assessee's non-representation. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance could be made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. Furthermore, following jurisdictional High Court precedent, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for calculating average investment, leading to a lower disallowance than offered by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities for unexplained foreign travel expenses and marriage expenses, as the assessee failed to provide substantiating evidence. The appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate foreign travel expenses and provided no evidence before the Tribunal. Similarly, for marriage expenses, incriminating documents were found, and the assessee could not rebut the presumption that they belonged to him.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities for unexplained foreign travel expenses and marriage expenses, as the assessee failed to provide substantiating evidence. The appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the appellate proceedings were ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the facts regarding the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IC(2)(a) required verification. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable in law. The additions made were not the grounds for reopening, and the basis for reopening in other cases was also invalid. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable in law. The additions made were not the grounds for reopening, and the basis for reopening in other cases was also invalid. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was quashed.