ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal upheld the disallowances on account of unverified creditors and mismatch in creditor balances, as the assessee failed to provide reconciliation or evidence. The findings of the lower authorities were affirmed.

The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessee and without any contrary evidence, declined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A)'s decision to reject additional evidence and sustain the disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal held that belated payments of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF are allowable deductions if deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return. This decision is based on amendments and judicial pronouncements clarifying the distinction between employer and employee contributions.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee's failure to provide evidence for the source of cash and jewellery was deemed insufficient to challenge the additions.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contribution to PF & ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 was considered prospective.

The Tribunal held that Mahindra Gujrat Tractor Ltd. should not be excluded solely on the ground of negative net worth, especially if it is profit-making and functionally comparable. It also upheld the exclusion of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. due to functional dissimilarity and scale of operations.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contribution to PF & ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 was considered prospective.

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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no justification for the AO's ad-hoc disallowance. The CIT(A) had noted that the services were provided for a longer period and the Revenue failed to provide any comparable instances to justify the disallowance.

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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn in limine, acknowledging the assessee's enrollment in the VSV Scheme. The Revenue reserves the right to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the VSV benefits.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that 'E-Infochips Bangalore Limited' and 'Infinite Data Systems Pvt. Ltd.' were not comparable companies. 'E-Infochips' showed volatile results and abnormal high margins, while 'Infinite Data Systems' had functional differences and failed the related party transaction filter, and its transactions were deemed international transactions under Section 92B(2).

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 the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing original vouchers for scrap sales, which the Assessing Officer verified without finding any discrepancies. Therefore, the deposits were considered sale proceeds of scrap, not unexplained cash credits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was overly technical in dismissing the appeal for delay, especially for an individual not previously filing returns. The assessee's claim of unawareness of the assessment order, despite due diligence, should not be disregarded.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the cryptic nature of the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits with a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not available at the given address and had not informed of any change, all efforts to serve notice were presumed to have been made. The Tribunal upheld the addition as the assessee failed to explain the source of cash used for credit card payments.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. It was noted that the assessee could seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not required to explain the source of stamp duty paid by all co-owners, but only to the extent of Rs. 4,16,667/-. The CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's explanation regarding sale consideration received prior to stamp duty payment without further inquiry.

The Tribunal held that Mahindra Gujrat Tractor Ltd. should not be excluded solely on the ground of negative net worth, especially if it is profit-making and functionally comparable. It also upheld the exclusion of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. due to functional dissimilarity and scale of operations.

The Tribunal held that the opening balance of advances could not be considered accrued income for the year. Advances received could not be taxed as income over and above the amount already offered to tax, as it represented future services or adjustments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's practice of not charging interest on receivables from both AEs and non-AEs was consistent and established arm's length conditions. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were invalid due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search and the lack of mandatory approval under Section 153D. For AY 2008-09, the addition under Section 68 was also found to be invalid as the revenue could not dispute cash withdrawals and opening balance.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's direction to verify the interest income was valid as the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiry. However, the PCIT's direction to modify the penalty proceedings was not permissible under Section 263.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as there was no exempt income. It also confirmed that carbon credits are capital receipts, as decided by a coordinate bench.

The Tribunal held that the Vijaya Bank decision did not cover the scenario of premium paid on purchase of securities. Citing a CBDT circular and various other tribunal decisions, it allowed the amortization of premium.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were invalid due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search and the lack of mandatory approval under Section 153D. For AY 2008-09, the addition under Section 68 was also found to be invalid as the revenue could not dispute cash withdrawals and opening balance.

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

The Tribunal held that the Vijaya Bank decision did not cover the scenario of premium paid on purchase of securities. Citing a CBDT circular and various other tribunal decisions, it allowed the amortization of premium.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were invalid due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search and the lack of mandatory approval under Section 153D. For AY 2008-09, the addition under Section 68 was also found to be invalid as the revenue could not dispute cash withdrawals and opening balance.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's revisional order was not justified as the assessee, with relevant qualifications, treated the gains as business income and did not claim any exemption under Section 10(38). The Tribunal found no prejudice to the revenue and quashed the revisional order.

The Tribunal found no substance in the assessee's grounds of appeal, including jurisdictional and merit-based issues. The assessee's claim of LTCG exemption was not substantiated, and the disallowance of purchases under Section 40A(3) was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that dividend income received by a cooperative society from other cooperative societies is expressly exempt under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's direction to verify the interest income was valid as the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiry. However, the PCIT's direction to modify the penalty proceedings was not permissible under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were invalid due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search and the lack of mandatory approval under Section 153D. For AY 2008-09, the addition under Section 68 was also found to be invalid as the revenue could not dispute cash withdrawals and opening balance.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were invalid due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search and the lack of mandatory approval under Section 153D. For AY 2008-09, the addition under Section 68 was also found to be invalid as the revenue could not dispute cash withdrawals and opening balance.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's revisional order was not justified as the assessee, with relevant qualifications, treated the gains as business income and did not claim any exemption under Section 10(38). The Tribunal found no prejudice to the revenue and quashed the revisional order.

The Tribunal noted that no additions were made in the fresh assessment order passed pursuant to the Section 263 direction. Therefore, the appeal was considered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were invalid due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search and the lack of mandatory approval under Section 153D. For AY 2008-09, the addition under Section 68 was also found to be invalid as the revenue could not dispute cash withdrawals and opening balance.

The Tribunal proceeded exparte as the assessee failed to appear and provide evidence. The CIT(A)'s order, which confirmed the AO's additions for unexplained investment and agricultural income, was upheld.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that the Vijaya Bank decision did not cover the scenario of premium paid on purchase of securities. Citing a CBDT circular and various other tribunal decisions, it allowed the amortization of premium.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment and the issuance of notice under Section 148 were invalid due to the lack of mandatory approval from the competent authority under Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the notice and the reassessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were invalid due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search and the lack of mandatory approval under Section 153D. For AY 2008-09, the addition under Section 68 was also found to be invalid as the revenue could not dispute cash withdrawals and opening balance.

The Tribunal held that the return filed by the assessee was in response to the notice under Section 148 and not under Section 119(2)(b). Since the AO accepted the income declared in the return, it was mandatory to issue a notice under Section 143(2) before making any additions. As this statutory requirement was not met, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the land in question was indeed agricultural land, supported by various documentary evidences. It further held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and thus eligible for exemption under Section 10(37).

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) acted beyond their jurisdiction as the assessment was not based on incriminating material pertaining to the relevant assessment year. The Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments were cited in support of this.