ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of stock differences was warranted, considering the high volume of business and the lack of actual weighment during stock taking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's grounds regarding the income of its subsidiary and other additions were valid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment, as the prior period expenses were clearly shown in the financial statements and tax audit report. Therefore, reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years were bad in law.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of stock differences was warranted, considering the high volume of business and the lack of actual weighment during stock taking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's grounds regarding the income of its subsidiary and other additions were valid.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of stock differences was warranted, considering the high volume of business and the lack of actual weighment during stock taking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's grounds regarding the income of its subsidiary and other additions were valid.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of stock differences was warranted, considering the high volume of business and the lack of actual weighment during stock taking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's grounds regarding the income of its subsidiary and other additions were valid.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of stock differences was warranted, considering the high volume of business and the lack of actual weighment during stock taking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's grounds regarding the income of its subsidiary and other additions were valid.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of stock differences was warranted, considering the high volume of business and the lack of actual weighment during stock taking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's grounds regarding the income of its subsidiary and other additions were valid.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of stock differences was warranted, considering the high volume of business and the lack of actual weighment during stock taking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's grounds regarding the income of its subsidiary and other additions were valid.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition on distribution expenses, finding no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings. Similarly, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 68, considering the totality of facts and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the provision for sales incentive under the 'Shahenshah Scheme' was made on a scientific basis and allowed the deduction. It also held that interest income earned on statutory fixed deposits was eligible for deduction under Section 80IC, following previous precedents.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of stock differences was warranted, considering the high volume of business and the lack of actual weighment during stock taking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's grounds regarding the income of its subsidiary and other additions were valid.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of stock differences was warranted, considering the high volume of business and the lack of actual weighment during stock taking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's grounds regarding the income of its subsidiary and other additions were valid.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of stock differences was warranted, considering the high volume of business and the lack of actual weighment during stock taking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's grounds regarding the income of its subsidiary and other additions were valid.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits. This was done to prevent a miscarriage of justice and to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of stock differences was warranted, considering the high volume of business and the lack of actual weighment during stock taking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's grounds regarding the income of its subsidiary and other additions were valid.

The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 263, which was the basis for the subsequent proceedings, was unsustainable and had been set aside by a previous Tribunal order. Therefore, the consequential assessment order and the CIT(A) order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of stock differences was warranted, considering the high volume of business and the lack of actual weighment during stock taking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's grounds regarding the income of its subsidiary and other additions were valid.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of stock differences was warranted, considering the high volume of business and the lack of actual weighment during stock taking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's grounds regarding the income of its subsidiary and other additions were valid.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of stock differences was warranted, considering the high volume of business and the lack of actual weighment during stock taking. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's grounds regarding the income of its subsidiary and other additions were valid.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV scheme benefits could not be availed for bona fide reasons.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable as the conditions for its invocation were not met. The search was not on the assessee, and the relevant financial year was the year of search, not a closed year prior to the search.

The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that since the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year, the disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted. The Revenue failed to provide any contrary binding decision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, particularly regarding the denial of cross-examination. The assessment order was deemed to have been passed arbitrarily.

The Tribunal held that while the deduction under Section 54F might be debatable due to a technical breach of the stipulated period, this alone does not justify the imposition of a penalty. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., stating that an incorrect claim in law does not automatically amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF, if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, is an allowable deduction. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not justified.

The Tribunal held that a 0.5% guarantee commission is at arm's length, reducing the TPO's enhancement. For interest on loans, the Tribunal directed the TPO to apply LIBOR + 2% as the arm's length benchmark, finding the TPO's addition of 5.5% to be excessive.

The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI, when deposited before the due date of filing the return, is not permissible. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's precedents on this matter.

The Tribunal held that payments for faculty development to a Singapore-based entity were not fees for technical services as per the India-Singapore DTAA, and since the entity had no PE in India, the income was not taxable in India. Consequently, TDS was not required.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition based on the 8% estimated profit but directed the deletion of Rs. 91,480/- which was an addition to the returned income already covered by the estimated profit.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of indexation for computing long-term capital gains should be calculated from the year of registration of the property, not from the year of the sale agreement and possession. The AO's calculation of the indexed cost of acquisition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on account of unexplained investment was deleted by the CIT(A) in a separate order which had attained finality, the penalty levied on such addition cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully demonstrated the source of the cash deposits, which were withdrawals from her own bank account representing retirement benefits. The re-deposit was necessitated by the postponement of the marriage and the subsequent demonetization period.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should recalculate the addition by giving credit for cash received from land sales. The Tribunal found the explanation regarding the opening cash balance and land sale proceeds to be plausible.

The Tribunal held that in light of the NCLT's moratorium order, which has overriding effect, the pending appeal cannot be adjudicated. Similar decisions by coordinate benches were also noted.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide conclusive findings on the assessee's knowledge of furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was observed that there were disputed facts and the assessee acted on advice, making the claim bona fide.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was baseless and perverse as there was no material to support the claim that the assessee had under-declared profits. The AO failed to identify the assessee's profession, making the profit comparison unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction by furnishing sufficient documentary evidence. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities were not justified in confirming the addition.

The Tribunal held that opening balances of payables could not be added to income except for a specific amount. It also ruled that TDS deposited before the due date of filing the return would not attract disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). Ad hoc disallowances on expenses were set aside, citing previous decisions in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that payments for faculty development to a Singapore-based entity were not fees for technical services as per the India-Singapore DTAA, and since the entity had no PE in India, the income was not taxable in India. Consequently, TDS was not required.

The Tribunal held that income derived from leasing SEZ properties, even if assessed under 'income from house property', is eligible for deduction under Section 80IAB as it arises from the business of developing a SEZ. The SEZ Act's overriding effect and the nature of the assessee's activities support this.

The Tribunal held that payments for faculty development to a Singapore-based entity were not fees for technical services as per the India-Singapore DTAA, and since the entity had no PE in India, the income was not taxable in India. Consequently, TDS was not required.

The Tribunal held that payments for faculty development to a Singapore-based entity were not fees for technical services as per the India-Singapore DTAA, and since the entity had no PE in India, the income was not taxable in India. Consequently, TDS was not required.

The Tribunal held that payments for faculty development to a Singapore-based entity were not fees for technical services as per the India-Singapore DTAA, and since the entity had no PE in India, the income was not taxable in India. Consequently, TDS was not required.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground related to the disallowance of expenses for non-deduction of TDS, stating that any such disallowance would be eligible for deduction under Section 10A. The appeal regarding the ALP adjustment was not fully detailed in the provided text but was implicitly addressed by the final outcome.

The Tribunal held that payments for faculty development to a Singapore-based entity were not fees for technical services as per the India-Singapore DTAA, and since the entity had no PE in India, the income was not taxable in India. Consequently, TDS was not required.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking jurisdiction under Section 147 as the reassessment was based on erroneous facts and an addition was made without a proper show cause notice. The reassessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that income derived from leasing SEZ properties, even if assessed under 'income from house property', is eligible for deduction under Section 80IAB as it arises from the business of developing a SEZ. The SEZ Act's overriding effect and the nature of the assessee's activities support this.