ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2022

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the allowance of exemption under Sections 11 and 12. It was held that the proviso to Section 2(15) does not apply to medical relief and that the CIT(A) had properly considered the facts and judicial precedents. The admission of additional evidence was also deemed appropriate after obtaining a remand report.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding Section 14A, tour and travelling expenses, and the nature of the assessee's business which did not involve closing stock.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the sundry creditors were genuine business transactions and there was a reduction in creditors compared to previous years. The Revenue failed to point out any fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided documentary evidence (Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari) showing self-cultivation of agricultural land, which was not rebutted by the revenue. Therefore, the finding of the lower authorities was contrary to the record.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the difference in income as per Form 26AS and the profit and loss account was well-reasoned and affirmed it. For the issue of deemed rental income, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order to consider the revised rateable value from NDMC in the subsequent year for the current year as well.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the withdrawal of exemption under Section 11 by invoking Section 2(15) was decided in favour of the assessee by previous Tribunal orders and the Allahabad High Court. Similarly, the addition related to the infrastructure fund was also decided in favour of the assessee based on a High Court ruling stating the fund belonged to the State and the assessee was a custodian. The benefit of excess utilization of earlier years was also allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, finding no reason to interfere due to the assessee's consistent non-cooperation and failure to provide necessary details. The appeal was decided based on the material on record.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in rectifying the order under Section 154 as there was a mistake apparent from the record. The supplementary lease rent, for agreements prior to 31.03.2007, was held to be exempt under Section 10(15A) and thus no disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly rectified the order under Section 154 as there was a mistake apparent from the record. Payments of supplementary lease rent under agreements entered into before 31.03.2007 were found to be exempt under Section 10(15A) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked valid reasons and tangible material to reopen the assessments for the years under appeal. The reliance on old survey findings and earlier assessment orders without specific material for the current years was deemed insufficient.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment for the years under appeal. The material relied upon was not specific to the assessment years in question and lacked a direct nexus with the belief formed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment for the years under appeal. The material relied upon was not specific to the assessment years in question and lacked a direct nexus with the belief formed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment for the years under appeal. The material relied upon was not specific to the assessment years in question and lacked a direct nexus with the belief formed.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied has already been deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalty cannot survive. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal related to the additions had been remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision. Therefore, the penalty appeal was also remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders, which were based on the original assessment orders that were subsequently set aside, had no basis. Therefore, the penalties levied were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders, which were based on the original assessment orders that were subsequently set aside, had no basis. Therefore, the penalties levied were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders, which were based on the original assessment orders that were subsequently set aside, had no basis. Therefore, the penalties levied were deleted.

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 moratorium granted by the NCLT prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings. Therefore, both appeals filed before the ITAT are no longer maintainable.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that if the income is offered to tax in subsequent assessment years on actual realization, then taxing it on accrual basis in the current year would amount to double taxation. The matter was remitted for verification of this factual aspect.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's direction to delete the interest under Section 234B. The DRP had relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision, which the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's direction to delete the interest under Section 234B. The DRP had relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision, which the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with.

The assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal noted the application and dismissed the appeal.

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 moratorium granted by the NCLT prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings. Therefore, both appeals filed before the ITAT are no longer maintainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal if the tax effect was found to be higher.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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.