ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2022

GIRDHARI YADAV,GHAZIABAD vs ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 1679/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

BENSON MOVERS PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 318/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI were not justified. The amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.

KUBER FOOD PRODUCTS INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

ITA 319/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This withdrawal was due to the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

SB PROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ITO, WARD-22(4), DELHI

ITA 1671/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.

OM PRAKASH & SONS,FARIDABAD vs ITO, WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD

ITA 1670/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

MEDSOL INDIA OVERSEAS PRIVATE LTD,GHAZIABAD vs ADIT, CPC, GB NAGAR

ITA 1652/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

DHARMENDER SHARMA,GURUGRAM vs ASSESSING OFFICER, GURGAON

ITA 1650/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

S S SAIB CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ASSESSING OFFICER, FARIDABAD

ITA 1649/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

STERLING MANAGEMENT AND PROJECT SERVICES PVT LTD,DELHI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC, DELHI

ITA 1645/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

EDAG PRODUCTION SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1633/DEL/2021[2017-2018]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2017-2018Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

IE AUTO INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LTD.,DELHI vs DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), DELHI

ITA 576/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

SHADES OF INDIA CRAFTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 1623/DEL/2021[2019-2020]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

SHADES OF INDIA CRAFTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 1622/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

ANIL BEHL,DELHI vs CIRCLE 28(1), DELHI

ITA 1610/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

ESSEX FARMS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs CIRCLE-8(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 1558/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

BHUWAN SHARMA,DELHI vs WARD 71(2), DELHI

ITA 367/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI were not justified. The amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.

BHARAT GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs ITO WARD - 35(5), NEW DELHI

ITA 1553/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have allowed the exemption/deduction under Section 10 as claimed by the employer. The Tribunal also stated that the assessee is entitled to TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS and must get any discrepancies rectified from the employer.

HIND SECURITIES SERVICES AND HOUSE KEEPING,DELHI vs ITO, WARD-28(5), DELHI

ITA 1552/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

HIND SECURITIES SERVICES AND HOUSE KEEPING,DELHI vs ITO, WARD-28(5), DELHI

ITA 1551/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

HIND SECURITIES SERVICES AND HOUSE KEEPING,DELHI vs ITO, WARD-28(5), DELHI

ITA 1550/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

SWIFT SECURITAS P. LTD.,DELHI vs CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 148/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 143(1) was beyond its scope as the issue was debatable and controversial, especially concerning the prospective or retrospective nature of amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B. The jurisdictional High Court's precedents favored the assessee.

S R FOILS & TISSUE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 936/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal as not admitted due to the delay and lack of sufficient cause. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings on both procedural and merit aspects.

R D ENTERPRISES,NOIDA vs WARD 59(7), DELHI

ITA 435/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

UNIVERSAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1165/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no substance in the assessee's submissions regarding the rejection of books of accounts and the addition as deemed dividend. The ground related to brought forward losses was rejected as the CIT(A) had directed verification.

SINGH PARAMJIT NAYYAR,NORTH WEST DELHI vs AO WARD 36(2), DELHI

ITA 441/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

S K FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs ITO, CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

ITA 443/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

S K FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs ITO, CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

ITA 444/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

JAMAN LAL/INDIVIDUAL,DELHI vs ITO,WARD 62(2), DELHI

ITA 451/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs DCITCIRCLR-20(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 4970/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction before making the disallowance under Section 14A. Following previous decisions in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.

UJJIVAN SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,DELHI vs DCIT-25(1), DELHI

ITA 1991/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

RAJ KUMAR KAUSHIK,GURGAON vs WARD 3(4), GURGAON

ITA 1998/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

GSJ ENVO LTD.,DELHI vs CIRCLE-10(2), DELHI

ITA 1988/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

SHIV PRATAP SINGH KUNWAR,MEERUT vs WARD 1(2)(3), MEERUT

ITA 2003/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

ACIT CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI vs GONG CHENG COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD., DELHI

ITA 1984/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

SHRIKANTA BANERJEE,DELHI vs WARD 43(5), CIVIL CENTRE, E-2 BLOCK, DELHI

ITA 1939/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

MEENAKSHI SPEECH & HEARING CLINICS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAGITRI ENCLAVE vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, WARD 17(1)

ITA 1938/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

MEENAKSHI SPEECH & HEARING CLINICS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAGRITI ENCLAVE vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, WARD 17(1)

ITA 1937/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

ACIT, CIRCLE- 30(1), NEW DELHI vs SYED HABIBR REHMAN, NEW DELHI

ITA 7597/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that post-amendment, it is sufficient for a bad debt to be written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's books, and the assessee need not prove the debt has actually become irrecoverable. The conditions of Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) were met.

SHWETA PUNEET KULTHIA,DELHI vs ITO, WARD- 61(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 2042/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and the AO. It found that the assessee failed to substantiate the sale of shares with evidence, and the sharp price increase was not supported by the company's fundamentals, indicating a modus operandi for money laundering.

FLYING GREEN CARRIERS PVT, LTD.,GZBD vs CIRCLE 9(1), DELHI

ITA 1920/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

PANKAJ KUMAR,FARIDABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2), GURGAON

ITA 547/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

BALWAN SINGH KUNDU,NEW DELHI vs WARD 70(2), DELHI

ITA 501/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

ARNIT CREATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs WARD-3(2), DELHI

ITA 1885/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

RAJNISH GANDHI,DELHI vs CIRCLE 31(1), DELHI

ITA 1884/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

COLORZ N STYLE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs CIRCLE-6(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1852/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

SKYPACK INDIA PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs CIRCLE-2(1), FARIDABAD

ITA 1790/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and held that the amendment by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

TRIPURARI ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,RANCHI vs ITO WARD - 25(4), NEW DELHI

ITA 3932/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the nature and source of the share application money. The Tribunal noted the lack of cooperation from the assessee and the confirmation of the addition by the lower authorities.

SMT. ROSY DABAS,NEW DELHI vs DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4170/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: Disposed22 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not clearly state if the additions were based on incriminating material from the second search. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

DEVENDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs ITO, WARD-59(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 5986/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Apr 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) as the assessee failed to provide any explanation for non-compliance with statutory notices. The findings of the lower authorities were affirmed.

RAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA,PANIPAT vs ITO WARD - 5, PANIPAT

ITA 7908/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) failed to adjudicate the ground challenging the reopening of assessment. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication of this ground and also the grounds on merits.