ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal held that making additions for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 based on the same documents for which income was already offered and taxed in AY 2008-09 amounts to double addition, which is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that commission paid to NRG Consultant Pvt. Ltd. could not be disallowed as it was not a related party. However, the disallowance of commission paid to Trust Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and Ms. Seema Verma was upheld as they were considered related parties and the commission paid was found to be excessive and unrealistic compared to the average rates.

The Tribunal held that making additions for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 based on the same documents for which income was already offered and taxed in AY 2008-09 amounts to double addition, which is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that following the jurisdictional Delhi High Court's decision, delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if made before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, is allowable as a deduction. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it failed to specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This lack of specificity indicates a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that making additions for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 based on the same documents for which income was already offered and taxed in AY 2008-09 amounts to double addition, which is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reassess the assessee as a non-exempt entity, as such authority vests with the CIT(Exemption). It also found that the donations were voluntary and the society's activities were not commercial, thus maintaining its deemed exempted status.

The Tribunal held that the issue is well-settled in favour of the assessee by various High Court decisions. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowance.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing relevant documents and participating in proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was remanded to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee, which is a valuable legal right. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reassess the assessee as a non-exempt entity, as such authority vests with the CIT(Exemption). It also found that the donations were voluntary and the society's activities were not commercial, thus maintaining its deemed exempted status.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity, due to amalgamation, is invalid in the eyes of law. Participation in proceedings by the assessee does not operate as an estoppel against this legal principle.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reassess the assessee as a non-exempt entity, as such authority vests with the CIT(Exemption). It also found that the donations were voluntary and the society's activities were not commercial, thus maintaining its deemed exempted status.

The Tribunal held that merely because the assessee, acting on a bonafide belief and a certificate from the revenue department, computed tax payable under Section 44BBB, it does not automatically entail the imposition of penalty. The Tribunal noted that the returned income and assessed income were the same.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr.CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reassess the assessee as a non-exempt entity, as such authority vests with the CIT(Exemption). It also found that the donations were voluntary and the society's activities were not commercial, thus maintaining its deemed exempted status.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reassess the assessee as a non-exempt entity, as such authority vests with the CIT(Exemption). It also found that the donations were voluntary and the society's activities were not commercial, thus maintaining its deemed exempted status.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to consider the delay condonation application on merits.

The Tribunal held that merely because the assessee, acting on a bonafide belief and a certificate from the revenue department, computed tax payable under Section 44BBB, it does not automatically entail the imposition of penalty. The Tribunal noted that the returned income and assessed income were the same.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148 was invalid because the AO relied solely on information from the investigation agency without independent verification or application of mind. The reasons for reopening were considered 'borrowed satisfaction'.

The Tribunal held that the network connectivity charges were not royalty or fee for technical services under the India-UK DTAA. The assessee's own equipment was used in India, and the foreign company merely provided connectivity through its own network.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reassess the assessee as a non-exempt entity, as such authority vests with the CIT(Exemption). It also found that the donations were voluntary and the society's activities were not commercial, thus maintaining its deemed exempted status.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the network connectivity charges were not royalty or fee for technical services under the India-UK DTAA. The assessee's own equipment was used in India, and the foreign company merely provided connectivity through its own network.

The Tribunal held that the issue is well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.

The ITAT found that the NFAC's dismissal of the appeal ex-parte was an error. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence and appear before the appellate authorities. The appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's negligence and lack of compliance.

The Tribunal held that the issue is well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.

The Tribunal held that interest received by land owners on enhanced compensation awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not income from other sources under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the TDS provisions of Section 194A were not attracted.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte dismissal was unjust and restored the appeals to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals afresh after giving the assessee a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the issue is well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte dismissal was unjust and restored the appeals to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals afresh after giving the assessee a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that adjustments made under Section 143(1) for debatable and controversial issues, especially those pertaining to periods before the Finance Act, 2021 amendments, are beyond the scope of Section 143(1). The addition was therefore set aside.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee is directed to present their case with evidence, and the CIT(A) is to provide a sufficient opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the issue is well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the issue is well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the issue is well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to rebut the information received by the Assessing Officer. Considering the principles of natural justice and the additional evidence filed, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the issue is well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.

The Tribunal held that interest received by land owners on enhanced compensation awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not income from other sources under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the TDS provisions of Section 194A were not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the issue is well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the issue is well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.

The Tribunal held that since the additions in the impugned assessment order were identical to those in the original assessment order, and the Tribunal had previously deleted similar additions in the assessee's own case, the impugned additions should also be deleted. The refund of excise duty was held to be a capital receipt not includible in total income.

The Tribunal held that since the additions in the impugned assessment order were identical to those in the original assessment order, and the Tribunal had previously deleted similar additions in the assessee's own case, the impugned additions should also be deleted. The refund of excise duty was held to be a capital receipt not includible in total income.

The Tribunal held that since the additions in the impugned assessment order were identical to those in the original assessment order, and the Tribunal had previously deleted similar additions in the assessee's own case, the impugned additions should also be deleted. The refund of excise duty was held to be a capital receipt not includible in total income.

The Tribunal held that since the additions in the impugned assessment order were identical to those in the original assessment order, and the Tribunal had previously deleted similar additions in the assessee's own case, the impugned additions should also be deleted. The refund of excise duty was held to be a capital receipt not includible in total income.

The Tribunal held that since the additions in the impugned assessment order were identical to those in the original assessment order, and the Tribunal had previously deleted similar additions in the assessee's own case, the impugned additions should also be deleted. The refund of excise duty was held to be a capital receipt not includible in total income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for partner's salary deduction, which was not adjudicated by the lower authorities, had merit. The AO was directed to allow this deduction as per law and re-compute the income.

The Tribunal held that the issue is well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.