ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2022

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the conditions for treating the amounts as deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) were not met. The amounts were either withdrawn by the assessee as a partner from a firm or were not received from a closely held company as required by the section.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the conditions for treating the amounts as deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) were not met. The amounts were either withdrawn by the assessee as a partner from a firm or were not received from a closely held company as required by the section.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the conditions for treating the amounts as deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) were not met. The amounts were either withdrawn by the assessee as a partner from a firm or were not received from a closely held company as required by the section.

The Tribunal held that Section 28(iv) is not applicable as the waiver was in the nature of cash, not a non-monetary benefit. Section 41(1) is also not applicable as the waiver of loan did not constitute cessation of a trading liability, and no deduction was claimed for interest payments.

The Tribunal held that the amendment restricting deduction to one residential property was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction for investment in both residential properties.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, as it failed to follow the binding directions of the DRP. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans and share premium were not sustainable if the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders/investors were established, especially when similar transactions were accepted in other assessment years. The Tribunal also noted that assessments under Section 153A should be based on seized material.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans and share premium were not sustainable if the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders/investors were established, especially when similar transactions were accepted in other assessment years. The Tribunal also noted that assessments under Section 153A should be based on seized material.

The Tribunal set aside the assessment and restored it to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was done in the interest of natural justice, directing the Assessing Officer to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans and share premium were not sustainable if the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders/investors were established, especially when similar transactions were accepted in other assessment years. The Tribunal also noted that assessments under Section 153A should be based on seized material.

The Tribunal held that the action of the CIT(A) could not be sustained. It considered various judgments and the materials on record, implying that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding the share capital.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans and share premium were not sustainable if the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders/investors were established, especially when similar transactions were accepted in other assessment years. The Tribunal also noted that assessments under Section 153A should be based on seized material.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether the land was agricultural land and thus not a capital asset was not properly adjudicated. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer to decide this issue and the entitlement to deduction under Section 54.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans and share premium were not sustainable if the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders/investors were established, especially when similar transactions were accepted in other assessment years. The Tribunal also noted that assessments under Section 153A should be based on seized material.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide specific reasons for rejecting the books of account, and mere cash payments do not automatically render accounts unreliable. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a net profit ratio of 1.5% considering the past history of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in making the addition as no reason was assigned for not accepting the assessee's explanation. The AO failed to bring any evidence suggesting the withdrawn cash was expended for other purposes.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans and share premium were not sustainable if the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders/investors were established, especially when similar transactions were accepted in other assessment years. The Tribunal also noted that assessments under Section 153A should be based on seized material.

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been quashed by a previous order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.

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 prescribed by CBDT Circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans and share premium were not sustainable if the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders/investors were established, especially when similar transactions were accepted in other assessment years. The Tribunal also noted that assessments under Section 153A should be based on seized material.

The Tribunal held that the issue was academic as the loss, even if allowed by the CIT(A), could not be carried forward for set off against future profits due to the belated filing of the return. Therefore, the merits of the disallowance were not examined.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. However, the disallowance of the cost of improvement was set aside, and the issue was remanded back to the AO for further inquiry and examination of evidence, including a registered valuer's report.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the grounds of appeal were cryptic and lacked specificity. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal again with specific grounds.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground and held that investments not yielding exempt income should be excluded from the calculation of average investment, following a Special Bench decision. Consequently, other grounds related to disallowances were dismissed as infructuous.

The ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the issue required remittance back to the AO for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) had not properly examined the facts and circumstances, and to prevent miscarriage of justice, the matter was restored to the AO.

For abated assessment years (2009-10, 2010-11), additions under Section 153A are not sustainable without incriminating material. For unabated assessment year (2013-14), the CIT(A) erred in applying the same principle, and the matter needs to be decided on merits.

For abated assessment years (2009-10, 2010-11), additions under Section 153A are not sustainable without incriminating material. For unabated assessment year (2013-14), the CIT(A) erred in applying the same principle, and the matter needs to be decided on merits.

The Tribunal found the CIT(E)'s order to be cryptic and lacking in appreciation of the assessee's objects and related case laws. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the case needs to be remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, as the previous order was passed ex-parte.

For abated assessment years (2009-10, 2010-11), additions under Section 153A are not sustainable without incriminating material. For unabated assessment year (2013-14), the CIT(A) erred in applying the same principle, and the matter needs to be decided on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, rendering the appeal infructuous. The appeal was accordingly treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the additions made by the AO, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted in the quantum appeal. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271AAA was no longer sustainable.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, not because it was arbitrary, but to allow the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case due to potential ignorance or oversight. The Tribunal strongly deprecated the use of irresponsible allegations against the lower authority.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessment order framed under Section 153A was not supported by any incriminating material found during the search for the relevant assessment year. The 'List of Transfer of Shares' relied upon by the Revenue pertained to a different financial year.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order framed under Section 153A was not supported by any incriminating material found during the search for the relevant assessment year. The 'List of Transfer of Shares' relied upon by the Revenue pertained to a different financial year.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by not incorporating the TPO's ALP adjustment into the assessment. Consequently, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment to rectify this omission was upheld.

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 prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on unauthenticated loose documents seized from a third party are not sustainable. The profit element, not the entire sale value, should be brought to tax, considering the cost of goods sold and the assessee's normal gross profit margin.

The Tribunal held that expenses excluded from export turnover for Section 10A deduction must also be excluded from total turnover, following Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO under Section 10A was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not permissible as it was initiated on the basis of incorrect facts and without proper independent inquiry. The AO's belief of escapement of income was not based on tangible material.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's plea to tax only the profit on peak amounts and to give credit for agricultural income. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified. It noted that no fresh loans were taken in the impugned year and that similar interest expenses were allowed in previous and subsequent years, establishing a consistency in treatment.

The Tribunal excluded three companies (BCH Electric Ltd., Havells India Ltd., and Eddy Current Controls (India) Ltd.) as comparables due to functional dissimilarity and/or turnover mismatch. The Tribunal also noted that penalty proceedings were initiated separately for non-compliance.

The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s directions to use internal TNMM for determining ALP based on segment reporting. The revenue's appeal was considered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that goodwill qualifies as a business or commercial right of a similar nature and is therefore eligible for depreciation. It relied on Supreme Court judgments confirming this position.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is mandatory in reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.