ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2022

The Tribunal held that a defective notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the Assessing Officer's assumption of jurisdiction to levy penalty. The notice must specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings are initiated under.

The CIT(A) correctly admitted additional evidence and, after considering the remand report from the AO which confirmed the genuineness of the transactions, rightly deleted the addition. The AO's own enquiries during remand did not find any discrepancies.

The Tribunal held that the statements used against the assessee were inadmissible without cross-examination, and the seized documents did not conclusively prove commission income. The AO failed to consider the director's affidavit denying commission payment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the foreign contribution received by the assessee, a joint venture of the Governments of India and France, was a transaction between the two governments and thus not subject to FCRA provisions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in treating the reassessment order dated 30.03.2014 as the original assessment order passed under Section 143(3). The Tribunal found that the original assessment order was passed on 29.12.2011, and the reassessment order was passed on 30.03.2014.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vague and did not specify the charge for which they were issued, making them bad in law. Following the decision of the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vague and did not specify the charge for which they were issued, making them bad in law. Following the decision of the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to conclusively prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans, and the revenue also failed to conduct complete inquiries. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that no prejudice would be caused by setting aside the order and allowing the assessee to present their case denovo. The CIT(A) was directed to afford the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the nexus between the loan taken and its business purposes. The Tribunal also noted that the interest earned on loans given by the assessee was lower than the interest paid on the loan received.

The Tribunal held that the income from contracts entered into on or after April 1, 2003, were effectively connected to the assessee's PE in India. Therefore, such income should be taxed on a net basis as per Section 44DA of the Act, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of the amount invested in the residential house and the amount spent to make it habitable. The Tribunal also directed the AO to recompute the capital gains accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing eligible products in a notified area, as established in prior year appeals. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of its appeals. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed as it had become infructuous due to the settlement.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not fully examined the issue regarding the addition of Rs. 3,94,982/-. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication de novo. For the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the CIT(A) was directed to examine the nature of the deposits.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of its appeals. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed as it had become infructuous due to the settlement.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following a coordinate bench decision in an identical case, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the absence of donations and funding from internal sources are not valid grounds for rejecting an application for approval under Section 80G. The CIT(E) was directed to grant the 80G certificate.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by resident Indian end-users to non-resident software suppliers for the use of software through End User License Agreements (EULAs) do not constitute royalty for the use of copyright. Such payments are considered business income not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar on a husband lending money to his wife or on the wife repaying such loans from her own investments. The rental income declared by the wife was accepted by the revenue, and the property was registered in her name.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vague and did not specify the charge for which they were issued, making them bad in law. Following the decision of the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vague and did not specify the charge for which they were issued, making them bad in law. Following the decision of the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vague and did not specify the charge for which they were issued, making them bad in law. Following the decision of the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vague and did not specify the charge for which they were issued, making them bad in law. Following the decision of the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of the amount invested in the residential house and the amount spent to make it habitable. The Tribunal also directed the AO to recompute the capital gains accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the loans and the creditworthiness of the lenders. However, the revenue also failed to conduct complete inquiries. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further investigation.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of its appeals. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed as it had become infructuous due to the settlement.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were non-est (void ab initio) because the AO failed to comply with the mandatory directions of the DRP, as per Section 144C(13) of the Act. This violation rendered the assessment orders invalid.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions made in the hands of Shri Anurag Dalmia were deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the protective additions made in the assessee's hands were also not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order deleting the protective additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that education cess is not a disallowable expenditure under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, as it is not considered a tax. Consequently, the deduction for education cess was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were non-est (void ab initio) because the AO failed to comply with the mandatory directions of the DRP, as per Section 144C(13) of the Act. This violation rendered the assessment orders invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were non-est (void ab initio) because the AO failed to comply with the mandatory directions of the DRP, as per Section 144C(13) of the Act. This violation rendered the assessment orders invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were non-est (void ab initio) because the AO failed to comply with the mandatory directions of the DRP, as per Section 144C(13) of the Act. This violation rendered the assessment orders invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were non-est (void ab initio) because the AO failed to comply with the mandatory directions of the DRP, as per Section 144C(13) of the Act. This violation rendered the assessment orders invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were non-est (void ab initio) because the AO failed to comply with the mandatory directions of the DRP, as per Section 144C(13) of the Act. This violation rendered the assessment orders invalid.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of jewellery seized from the assessee's house was not sustainable as it was already accounted for in the income declared by the assessee's father. Similarly, the addition for cash found was deleted as it belonged to the assessee's uncle and was declared in his income.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of jewellery seized from the assessee's house was not sustainable as it was already accounted for in the income declared by the assessee's father. Similarly, the addition for cash found was deleted as it belonged to the assessee's uncle and was declared in his income.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of jewellery seized from the assessee's house was not sustainable as it was already accounted for in the income declared by the assessee's father. Similarly, the addition for cash found was deleted as it belonged to the assessee's uncle and was declared in his income.

The Tribunal held that supplemental lease rent paid for lease agreements executed after April 1, 2007, is not chargeable to tax in India as per the India-Ireland DTAA. Specifically, Article 12(3)(a) excludes aircraft from the definition of royalty, and Article 8 states that profits from aircraft rental are taxable only in the lessor's state of residence.

The Tribunal held that since the cash found in the lockers was already taxed substantively in the hands of Shri Aditya Sharma, it could not be taxed again in the hands of the assessees to avoid double taxation. The addition of jewellery was also deleted based on CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a business support service provider and not bearing significant risks, should not be treated as a trader for ALP adjustment purposes. The addition made on account of ALP adjustment was deleted.

The Tribunal held that making a bona fide claim based on audited financials, even if rejected by revenue authorities, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, when the quantum appeal involving substantial questions of law is admitted by the High Court, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the appeal was not maintainable.