ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal held that payments made to HUDA for EDC were effectively payments to the State Government, exempting the assessee from TDS deduction under Section 196. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271C was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO was invalid as the specified domestic transactions did not exceed the Rs. 5 crore threshold. Consequently, the assessment order, passed beyond the normal limitation period, was quashed.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT, all proceedings in any court of law or tribunal cannot continue. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the present proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee cannot be treated as a separate international transaction requiring separate benchmarking. This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own cases and the Delhi High Court's decisions on the Bright Line Test.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, as per Sections 251 & 252 of the Income-tax Act and various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that currency derivative transactions carried out on a recognized stock exchange through a registered broker, meeting the conditions of Section 43(5)(d) and Explanation-1, are not speculative. Therefore, losses arising from such transactions are eligible for set-off against non-speculative income.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding them to be initiated without proper application of mind and based on incorrect facts, similar to a prior ruling on an identical case. Consequently, the reassessment orders were deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) correctly followed the binding ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in the assessee's own case. Since the AAR ruling was not overturned by a higher court, the revenue authorities' actions were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including a signed audit report, financial statements, VAT/Service Tax returns, and bank statements, during remand proceedings. The additions on account of share capital were also contested due to the close-knit nature of the company and the introduction of funds through banking channels from respectable individuals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, as per Sections 251 & 252 of the Income-tax Act and various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition as the amount in question was part of the consideration for development rights, not undisclosed income. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 34,242/- and an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 9,02,822/-, while upholding a partial disallowance of foreign travel expenses.

The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(1) renders the cognizance taken by the Assessing Officer under Section 92CA invalid. However, the applicability of Section 40A(2) to the impugned transactions cannot be ruled out.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposit. The assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the donor (father) and the source of funds was deemed unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders clearly showed that the additions were devoid of any incriminating material found at the time of search. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society, which requires a nexus between the issue of notice u/s 153C and incriminating material, squarely applies.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders clearly showed that the additions were devoid of any incriminating material found at the time of search. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society, which requires a nexus between the issue of notice u/s 153C and incriminating material, squarely applies.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a pure trading company without adding value to the purchased products, making RPM the most appropriate method. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to accept RPM and decide accordingly.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271AAA as the major part of the additions on which the penalty was based had been deleted by a prior ITAT order. Only a small portion of the addition was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to set off business losses against deemed income under Section 115BBE for the assessment year 2014-15, as the amendment disallowing such set-off was effective from AY 2017-18. The earlier contrary High Court decisions were distinguished.

The Tribunal found the Commissioner's order to be reasoned and logical, affirming the addition. No material was found to controvert the findings of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not permissible as the employee's contribution was paid before the due date of filing the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision and set aside the addition.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based on a notional addition of long-term capital gains relying solely on circle rates. The assessee had provided all necessary details and offered the enhanced income voluntarily.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable based on the assessee's submission and the Department's concession. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

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. This decision was based on various judicial precedents and the understanding of amendments to the Finance Act, 2021.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment year in question fell within the six-year period for Section 153C, the assessment order should have been passed under that section. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that since the satisfaction note was dated 02.12.2016, the assessment for AY 2015-16 should have been made under Section 153C of the Act, as it fell within the block period. Therefore, the assessment order framed under Section 143(3) was invalid.

The tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the appeal should be restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits. The CIT(Appeals) is directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the 5% net profit ratio was arbitrarily adopted by the AO and CIT(A) without any justification or supporting material. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 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 bona fide reasons.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory time limit prescribed by the proviso to Section 143(2). Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this invalid notice is unsustainable and is quashed.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) and held that the facts were identical to the previous year's case where the assessee was found to be a manufacturer and eligible for the deduction. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had correctly concluded that the transactions were accommodation entries and that the assessee had concealed income. Therefore, the penalty imposed was justified.

The Tribunal held that the statement of the assessee's son, who had no direct association with the business and was not authorized to provide stock valuation, lacked evidentiary value. Consequently, the addition on account of stock valuation was deleted. The disallowance of labour charges for furniture was restricted to Rs. 5,000.

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 return of income. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are effective from April 1, 2021, and do not apply retrospectively to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was logical and based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It found no reason to interfere with the PCIT's findings that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no perversity or illegality. The application for additional evidence was disallowed, and the additions were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the CPC was not justified without providing a proper opportunity of hearing, especially given the short delay in filing the audit report. The CIT(A) had failed to consider the assessee's submissions on merits.

The Tribunal held that the primary burden of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions for share capital was discharged by the assessee, leading to the deletion of additions on this ground for certain entities. However, for other entities, the CIT(A)'s findings upholding additions were agreed with. The case of Zodiac Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. was remanded due to a changed scenario following decisions in SVP Group entities' appeals.

The Tribunal held that since the Section 263 order was set aside by a previous ITAT order, the consequential assessment order and the additions made therein could not have any independent existence. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions.

The Tribunal held that the primary burden of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions for share capital was discharged by the assessee, leading to the deletion of additions on this ground for certain entities. However, for other entities, the CIT(A)'s findings upholding additions were agreed with. The case of Zodiac Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. was remanded due to a changed scenario following decisions in SVP Group entities' appeals.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF if deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered to be effective from April 1, 2021.

The Tribunal held that the primary burden of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions for share capital was discharged by the assessee, leading to the deletion of additions on this ground for certain entities. However, for other entities, the CIT(A)'s findings upholding additions were agreed with. The case of Zodiac Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. was remanded due to a changed scenario following decisions in SVP Group entities' appeals.

The Tribunal held that the primary burden of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions for share capital was discharged by the assessee, leading to the deletion of additions on this ground for certain entities. However, for other entities, the CIT(A)'s findings upholding additions were agreed with. The case of Zodiac Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. was remanded due to a changed scenario following decisions in SVP Group entities' appeals.

The Tribunal held that the primary burden of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions for share capital was discharged by the assessee, leading to the deletion of additions on this ground for certain entities. However, for other entities, the CIT(A)'s findings upholding additions were agreed with. The case of Zodiac Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. was remanded due to a changed scenario following decisions in SVP Group entities' appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek remedial measures if the circular was found inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked valid jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 147/148 as the reasons recorded were not based on independent application of mind and lacked tangible material. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the primary burden of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions for share capital was discharged by the assessee, leading to the deletion of additions on this ground for certain entities. However, for other entities, the CIT(A)'s findings upholding additions were agreed with. The case of Zodiac Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. was remanded due to a changed scenario following decisions in SVP Group entities' appeals.

The Tribunal held that the primary burden of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions for share capital was discharged by the assessee, leading to the deletion of additions on this ground for certain entities. However, for other entities, the CIT(A)'s findings upholding additions were agreed with. The case of Zodiac Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. was remanded due to a changed scenario following decisions in SVP Group entities' appeals.

The Tribunal held that the primary burden of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions for share capital was discharged by the assessee, leading to the deletion of additions on this ground for certain entities. However, for other entities, the CIT(A)'s findings upholding additions were agreed with. The case of Zodiac Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. was remanded due to a changed scenario following decisions in SVP Group entities' appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked valid jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 147/148 as the reasons recorded were not based on independent application of mind and lacked tangible material. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had bypassed the mandatory procedure laid down in Section 144C of the Act, which was similar to cases decided by the Delhi High Court. Therefore, the assessment order was bad in law.