ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal held that the AO travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without obtaining necessary approval. Since the premise for the scrutiny was incorrect and the AO exceeded his jurisdiction, the addition made by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer on the jurisdictional grounds before disposing of the appeals ex-parte. The appeals are restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is not sustainable if paid before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that a penalty notice must clearly specify the charge for which it is issued, and an omnibus notice without striking off irrelevant limbs is vague and bad in law. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and apply from AY 2021-22. Payments of employees' contribution to PF & ESI made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable as deduction.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made for delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, is not sustainable. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it for non-prosecution. The appeal is restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits.

The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer on the jurisdictional grounds before disposing of the appeals ex-parte. The appeals are restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance for delayed employee contributions to PF/ESI was incorrect as the payments were made within the due date for filing the return of income. Regarding the gratuity provision, the Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's direction to the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim of having already added back the provision.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the dispute no longer survived. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that once the substantive addition is settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the penalty order related to it ceases to subsist. Therefore, the appeal against the penalty is allowed.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in not considering past savings from agricultural income. The Tribunal presumed the assessee had at least Rs. 8,00,000/- in past savings.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT at Rs. 50 lakhs. The Revenue can seek recall if the tax effect is higher or falls under exceptions.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the merits, violating principles of natural justice and the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is allowable as a deduction if paid before the due date for filing the return of income. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposits. The deposits were made in AY 2011-12, while the land sale occurred in AY 2014-15.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 56F electronically was not mandatory for AY 2013-14, and filing a hard copy before the completion of assessment was sufficient. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and is not liable to Income Tax, following previous Tribunal and High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that if a property is vacant due to legal disability or physical impossibility to let it out, the rent cannot be considered 'receivable' under Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, no tax liability can be created on notional rent in such circumstances.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the source of cash deposits and for claiming deduction under Section 54F when the new asset was purchased in the name of his wife and son.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and is not liable to Income Tax, following previous Tribunal and High Court decisions.

The Tribunal had previously deleted the addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- which formed the basis for the penalty. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as it had no foundation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the ITAT had previously allowed the assessee's appeal and cancelled the order withdrawing the Section 12A registration. The Revenue presented no material to contradict this.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, brought by the Finance Act, 2021, apply prospectively from Assessment Year 2021-2022. Therefore, delayed payments of employees' contribution to PF & ESI, if made before the due date of filing the return of income, are allowable as deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer on the jurisdictional grounds before disposing of the appeals ex-parte. The appeals are restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the tax authorities were justified in rejecting the application for 80G approval. The appellant failed to establish that it was actively engaged in its stated charitable object of imparting education, despite having ample time and registration.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and is not liable to Income Tax, following previous Tribunal and High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing the audit report was condoned by the CIT under Section 119(2)(b) and the AO rectified the order accordingly, the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the denial of exemption.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the dispute no longer survived. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the assessee's income at 8% of net contract receipts. This was done after the Revenue representative expressed no objection to the assessee's request.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for provision for warranty, following its own prior decisions and the Supreme Court ruling in Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. The Tribunal also noted that the transfer pricing issues were covered by earlier orders.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 163, which allow for treating a person as a representative assessee, can only be applied to a non-resident. If the non-resident stayed in India for 183 days or more, they would be considered a resident, making Section 163 inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 163, which allow for treating a person as a representative assessee, can only be applied to a non-resident. If the non-resident stayed in India for 183 days or more, they would be considered a resident, making Section 163 inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 163, which allow for treating a person as a representative assessee, can only be applied to a non-resident. If the non-resident stayed in India for 183 days or more, they would be considered a resident, making Section 163 inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 163, which allow for treating a person as a representative assessee, can only be applied to a non-resident. If the non-resident stayed in India for 183 days or more, they would be considered a resident, making Section 163 inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 163, which allow for treating a person as a representative assessee, can only be applied to a non-resident. If the non-resident stayed in India for 183 days or more, they would be considered a resident, making Section 163 inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 163, which allow for treating a person as a representative assessee, can only be applied to a non-resident. If the non-resident stayed in India for 183 days or more, they would be considered a resident, making Section 163 inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 163, which allow for treating a person as a representative assessee, can only be applied to a non-resident. If the non-resident stayed in India for 183 days or more, they would be considered a resident, making Section 163 inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the issue of taxing income on a net basis was identical to previous assessment years where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order to tax income on a net basis was upheld.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding salary payments and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It also directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds that were not previously decided.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 163, which allow for treating a person as a representative assessee, can only be applied to a non-resident. If the non-resident stayed in India for 183 days or more, they would be considered a resident, making Section 163 inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 163, which allow for treating a person as a representative assessee, can only be applied to a non-resident. If the non-resident stayed in India for 183 days or more, they would be considered a resident, making Section 163 inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF if deposited before the due date for filing the Income Tax Return, following various High Court and Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits and did not follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act, nor the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the delayed filing of Form 10, when done before the completion of assessment, should be considered. Relying on a previous ITAT decision and CBDT circular, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the benefit of accumulation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation that the cash deposits were from prior cash withdrawals made for land purchase was plausible. The bank statements supported these withdrawals and subsequent deposits within a short period.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, as there was no objection from the Revenue.

The Tribunal found that it was unclear how many opportunities were given to the assessee by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.