ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2022

The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order dismissing the assessee's appeal without examining the merits. The Tribunal, following a Bombay High Court judgment, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the settlement of the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed made a request for the assessment order, contrary to the AO's report. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee faced genuine difficulties in complying with AO's requirements and that the prior period expenses claim was not properly scrutinized. Both parties agreed to set aside the issues to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee faced genuine difficulties in complying with the AO's requirements and that the issues were not properly scrutinized. Both parties agreed to set aside the matter to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee faced genuine difficulties in complying with the AO's requirements and that the issues were not properly scrutinized. Both parties agreed to set aside the matter to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee faced genuine difficulties in complying with the AO's requirements and that the issues were not properly scrutinized. Both parties agreed to set aside the matter to the AO for fresh assessment.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee faced genuine difficulties in complying with the AO's requirements and that the issues were not properly scrutinized. Both parties agreed to set aside the matter to the AO for fresh assessment.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal held that the management program undertaken by the director would improve his management and decision-making skills, ultimately benefiting the assessee's business. Therefore, the expenditure was considered allowable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee faced genuine difficulties in complying with the AO's requirements and that the issues were not properly scrutinized. Both parties agreed to set aside the matter to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions regarding the applicability of Sections 44AB and 44AD, and the issue of buy-back of shares. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been given an opportunity to make submissions regarding the admissibility of the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the grounds of appeal were restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable because the total tax effect was less than the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- specified in the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee has own funds exceeding the investments yielding tax-free income, no disallowance of interest expenditure can be made. This is based on the presumption that such investments are made from own funds, a principle upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E is mandatory for delayed TDS statement filings after the amendment to Section 200A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, effective from June 1, 2015. The fee is considered a charge for availing the facility of delayed filing, not a penalty.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and Pr.CIT vs. M/s Pro Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. These judgments established that belatedly paid employee contributions, if paid before the return filing due date, are allowable as expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and Pr.CIT vs. M/s Pro Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. These judgments established that belatedly paid employee contributions, if paid before the return filing due date, are allowable as expenditure.

The Tribunal found contradictory stands taken by the authorities below and noted that the assessee claimed the amount was squared up at the creditor's instruction. Since the Revenue did not rebut this with contrary material, the addition was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the new asset purchased was indeed a residential house, as confirmed by field inquiry and documentary evidence including the sale deed and property tax records. Therefore, the deduction under Section 54F was allowable.

The Tribunal held that the octroi expenses, though relating to earlier years, were deductible in the current year as the liability crystallized and was paid before filing the return. However, lease incentives were to be taxed in the year of accrual, not amortized over the lease period.

The CIT(A) directed the AO to recalculate the addition by applying 8% net profit rate after considering the opening work-in-progress, aligning with accounting standards. The Tribunal upheld this direction.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of the annual letting value was devoid of any rational basis or supporting evidence regarding property area and market rental rates. Therefore, the addition made by the revenue authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of the annual letting value was devoid of any rational basis or supporting evidence regarding property area and market rental rates. Therefore, the addition made by the revenue authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of the annual letting value was devoid of any rational basis or supporting evidence regarding property area and market rental rates. Therefore, the addition made by the revenue authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the judgments of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and Pr.CIT vs. M/s Pro Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. These judgments allow deduction if the actual payment is made before the filing of the Income Tax Return.

The Tribunal held that the octroi expenses, though relating to earlier years, were deductible in the current year as the liability crystallized and was paid before filing the return. However, lease incentives were to be taxed in the year of accrual, not amortized over the lease period.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Fixed Place PE as the premises were not at its disposal and it lacked control. It also held that no Supervisory PE existed as the employees' activities were technical assistance, not supervision of construction or installation projects.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on conjectures and surmises, as there was no material evidence to suggest that the assessee received any income in India or accrued any income in India after becoming a non-resident. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that no income was taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on conjectures and surmises, as there was no material evidence to suggest that the assessee received any income in India or accrued any income in India after becoming a non-resident. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that no income was taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on conjectures and surmises, as there was no material evidence to suggest that the assessee received any income in India or accrued any income in India after becoming a non-resident. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that no income was taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on conjectures and surmises, as there was no material evidence to suggest that the assessee received any income in India or accrued any income in India after becoming a non-resident. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that no income was taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on conjectures and surmises, as there was no material evidence to suggest that the assessee received any income in India or accrued any income in India after becoming a non-resident. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that no income was taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on conjectures and surmises, as there was no material evidence to suggest that the assessee received any income in India or accrued any income in India after becoming a non-resident. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that no income was taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on conjectures and surmises, as there was no material evidence to suggest that the assessee received any income in India or accrued any income in India after becoming a non-resident. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that no income was taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were on an ad-hoc basis without pointing out specific defects in the vouchers or books of accounts. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments that disallowed estimated additions without cogent basis.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order is bad in law because the AO's notice and the penalty order did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, violating the principles laid down by various High Courts.

The Tribunal held that where the employee's contribution was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, the deduction is allowable. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Delhi High Court in Pr.CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arose.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a strong case on merits regarding MAT credit computation and that justice should be favored over technicalities. The delay in filing the appeal was considered to have a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal found that no inquiry was made from the assessee's brother regarding the loan payments. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on both the house property loss and the Section 80C deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Fixed Place PE as the premises were not at its disposal and it lacked control. It also held that no Supervisory PE existed as the employees' activities were technical assistance, not supervision of construction or installation projects.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, following a previous order where similar appeals were dismissed due to the NCLT moratorium. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeals upon further orders from the NCLT.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, following a previous order where similar appeals were dismissed due to the NCLT moratorium. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeals upon further orders from the NCLT.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the AO had not specified deficiencies or provided material to substantiate his findings. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the sundry creditors were duly examined and proved acceptable.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that submissions on the validity of the Section 153A assessment and the merits of the additions were not duly considered. The Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the settlement of the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal held that the performance guarantee commission was taxable in Singapore under its tax laws, even without a Permanent Establishment (PE) in Singapore. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for foreign tax credit in India.