ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal held that income derived from providing baggage screening and aircraft handling services to other airlines, as a participant of the IATP pool, is covered under Article 8(1) read with Article 8(4) of the India-USA Tax Treaty and thus not taxable in India. Consequently, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2009-10, since the assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration under Section 12AA, the assessee was eligible for exemption. However, for AY 2008-09, the assessment was already completed before registration, thus no benefit could be granted.

The Tribunal held that income derived from providing baggage screening and aircraft handling services to other airlines, as a participant of the IATP pool, is covered under Article 8(1) read with Article 8(4) of the India-USA Tax Treaty and thus not taxable in India. Consequently, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the salary and wages deduction, finding no rationale in the AO's disallowance. Regarding gross receipts, the Tribunal held that the entire mobilization advance cannot be treated as income for the year, and confirmed the CIT(A)'s addition of Rs. 2,09,55,220/-.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2009-10, since the assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration under Section 12AA, the assessee was eligible for exemption. However, for AY 2008-09, the assessment was already completed before registration, thus no benefit could be granted.

The Tribunal held that income derived from providing baggage screening and aircraft handling services to other airlines, as a participant of the IATP pool, is covered under Article 8(1) read with Article 8(4) of the India-USA Tax Treaty and thus not taxable in India. Consequently, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary burden by providing evidence that the amount was received from its Director, who was an income-tax assessee and had filed her return. The AO should have investigated the Director's return and the source of funds, and in the absence of adverse material, the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the sale deed clearly indicated payments were made by BIC Logistics Ltd. through cheques and cash, which the assessee acknowledged. Therefore, the deletion of Short Term Capital Gain by the CIT(A) was erroneous.

The Tribunal held that income derived from providing baggage screening and aircraft handling services to other airlines, as a participant of the IATP pool, is covered under Article 8(1) read with Article 8(4) of the India-USA Tax Treaty and thus not taxable in India. Consequently, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the decision to confirm the additions. The assessee failed to provide sufficient material to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to explain the source of the cash deposits. The explanation of receiving gifts and loans was not substantiated by bank withdrawals.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without proper jurisdiction because the Revenue could not produce a valid transfer order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that income derived from providing baggage screening and aircraft handling services to other airlines, as a participant of the IATP pool, is covered under Article 8(1) read with Article 8(4) of the India-USA Tax Treaty and thus not taxable in India. Consequently, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that income derived from providing baggage screening and aircraft handling services to other airlines, as a participant of the IATP pool, is covered under Article 8(1) read with Article 8(4) of the India-USA Tax Treaty and thus not taxable in India. Consequently, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.

The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly deleted the penalty because the addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty cannot survive.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the decision to confirm the additions. The assessee failed to provide sufficient material to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal found merit in the CIT(A)'s reasoning that Section 68 is not applicable to transactions involving mere book entries or swapping of shares, as it pertains to actual sums of money. However, due to the lack of examination of the factual and legal aspects by the lower authorities, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that income derived from providing baggage screening and aircraft handling services to other airlines, as a participant of the IATP pool, is covered under Article 8(1) read with Article 8(4) of the India-USA Tax Treaty and thus not taxable in India. Consequently, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that income derived from providing baggage screening and aircraft handling services to other airlines, as a participant of the IATP pool, is covered under Article 8(1) read with Article 8(4) of the India-USA Tax Treaty and thus not taxable in India. Consequently, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that income derived from providing baggage screening and aircraft handling services to other airlines, as a participant of the IATP pool, is covered under Article 8(1) read with Article 8(4) of the India-USA Tax Treaty and thus not taxable in India. Consequently, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the decision to confirm the additions. The assessee failed to provide sufficient material to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that excess expenditure from earlier years can be adjusted against the surplus of the subsequent year, and this adjustment amounts to the application of income for charitable purposes. The Tribunal also noted that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider relevant case law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions because no incriminating material relating to the assessment years in question was found during the search. The additions were not based on any seized documents.

The Tribunal held that in cases of difference between books of account and Form 26AS, only the embedded profit portion should be considered for addition, not the entire turnover. The addition was restricted to 5% of the undisclosed turnover.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after some compliance, and considering precedents from coordinate benches, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) should not be levied on technical grounds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions because no incriminating material relating to the assessment years in question was found during the search. The additions were not based on any seized documents.

The Tribunal held that income derived from providing baggage screening and aircraft handling services to other airlines, as a participant of the IATP pool, is covered under Article 8(1) read with Article 8(4) of the India-USA Tax Treaty and thus not taxable in India. Consequently, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that income derived from providing baggage screening and aircraft handling services to other airlines, as a participant of the IATP pool, is covered under Article 8(1) read with Article 8(4) of the India-USA Tax Treaty and thus not taxable in India. Consequently, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that income derived from providing baggage screening and aircraft handling services to other airlines, as a participant of the IATP pool, is covered under Article 8(1) read with Article 8(4) of the India-USA Tax Treaty and thus not taxable in India. Consequently, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record specific satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's suo motu disallowance. Given the availability of substantial interest-free funds, the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A was deleted, following the principle of consistency with earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the association was functional on the principles of mutuality, with commonality of identity between member firms and contributions solely for meeting expenditures. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld, finding no fault in facts or law.

The Tribunal held that the association was functional on the principles of mutuality, with commonality of identity between member firms and contributions solely for meeting expenditures. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld, finding no fault in facts or law.

The Tribunal held that the association was functional on the principles of mutuality, with commonality of identity between member firms and contributions solely for meeting expenditures. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld, finding no fault in facts or law.

The Tribunal held that the liability was not contingent as it had accrued. It also found that Section 43B was not applicable and the interest was not penal in nature. The Tribunal relied on a previous ITAT decision to allow the deduction.

The Tribunal held that since most bills were less than Rs. 20,000 and payments were made in installments below the threshold, the disallowance should be restricted. The disallowance was limited to Rs. 64,000, representing two bills of Rs. 23,000 each.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the addition (Rs. 24,13,787/-) was a repeat addition from the previous year, which was deleted by a co-ordinate bench, and thus deleted it. The remaining amount was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the surrender letter, rent receipts, and acceptance by predecessor AO in prior years constituted sufficient evidence. Rental income not actually received or accrued cannot be taxed.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of rental income difference was not sustainable as the property was jointly owned and the co-owner had declared their share of rent. The addition for cash deposits was also deleted as the assessee provided a cash flow statement supported by bank withdrawals, demonstrating the availability of cash.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 was confirmed. The assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness of shareholders, and genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to special audit and personal expenses as not pressed. It allowed the appeal concerning Section 14A disallowance, directing deletion of certain amounts based on sufficient own funds. For Section 40A(ia) disallowances, some were set aside for fresh examination, while others were sustained.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) can be made if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds exceeding the advances given, and that the advances were for business purposes. For Section 14A, it was held that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income has been earned.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) can be made if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds exceeding the advances given, and that the advances were for business purposes. For Section 14A, it was held that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income has been earned.

The Tribunal held that the payments were for commission and not for technical services, as the foreign entity acted as an export commission agent and did not have a business connection or permanent establishment in India. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions on identical facts.

The tribunal deleted the disallowance for delayed payment of EPF/ESI contributions, following a coordinate bench decision. It restricted the disallowance on vehicle expenses to 5% and allowed deduction under Section 80IC on the enhanced profit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal was decided based on the available material. The CIT(A) had upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied has been deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty order is unsustainable. Therefore, the penalty levied is to be obliterated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee association was functioning on the principles of mutuality, and the receipts from its member firms were not taxable as income. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the issue of Arms' Length Price adjustment was decided by a coordinate bench. Regarding the Section 80-IC deduction, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for fresh consideration as the appellate authority can entertain such claims. The set-off of brought forward losses was also remitted to the AO for recomputation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order under Section 271B was invalid because it was passed in consequence of an assessment order that was subsequently set aside by a prior ITAT order. Therefore, the penalty proceedings became infructuous.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeal as the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.