ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made under Section 153A were not sustainable. The assessment order was quashed, and the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271 was invalid because it did not specifically state the grounds for imposing the penalty, i.e., whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty levied was quashed.

The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee for its domestic business did not constitute an international transaction in the absence of evidence of an agreement or arrangement between associated enterprises for excessive AMP spending. Regarding receivables, the Tribunal allowed netting of interest and set off of brought forward losses.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had disclosed complete facts and paid taxes on the income in the subsequent year, it was not a fit case for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that corpus donations for land and building funds and life membership fees were capital receipts. It also considered the application of funds towards the construction of a community hall. The appeal was decided on these grounds.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The dispute was considered settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, rendering the appeal infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty levied was obliterated.

The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of software to Indian customers is not taxable as royalty. This decision aligns with previous rulings by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee for its domestic business does not constitute an international transaction in the absence of evidence of an 'agreement' or 'arrangement' between associated enterprises. It also directed that netting of interest on receivables be accorded and brought forward losses be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the exceptions to the monetary limit, as provided in subsequent CBDT circulars, were prospective and not applicable to appeals filed before the effective date of those exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the limit.

The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee for its domestic business did not constitute an international transaction in the absence of evidence of an agreement or arrangement between associated enterprises for excessive AMP spending. Regarding receivables, the Tribunal allowed netting of interest and set off of brought forward losses.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for verification of the assessee's claim regarding consultancy payments and TDS deduction. The assessee is directed to produce original confirmations from the parties.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adopted a liberal approach and condoned the delay, considering the medical certificate provided by the assessee. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) made assumptions regarding the property valuation without any inquiry with the seller. The Tribunal noted that circle rates are guidance values and not conclusive, and the transaction price is a commercial bargain.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the AO irregularly exercised jurisdiction by widening the scope of scrutiny without prior approval. Therefore, the assessment order was liable to be quashed on jurisdictional grounds. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the Section 54F claim on merits.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO on account of delayed deposit of employee's contribution towards PF/ESI were not justified if the deposits were made before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021 was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude several companies from the list of comparables, finding them functionally dissimilar or engaged in different services. Consequently, the adjustment made by the TPO was reduced to Nil.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing principles of natural justice. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal found that the AO made the addition based on a factual misconception. It directed the AO to dispose of the assessee's pending rectification application under Section 154, rectifying the apparent mistake in the addition.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition of Rs. 26,69,289. This was because the identity and genuineness of the creditor, Rajiv Kumar Kapil Kumar Jain, could not be established despite summons and field inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021 was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the AO had tangible material to reopen the assessment under Section 147 as the initial return was processed under Section 143(1) and specific information was received. The Tribunal also found no merit in the grounds challenging the reopening and confirmed the disallowance of the F&O loss due to lack of evidence from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if the additions forming the basis of penalty proceedings are deleted in appeal, the penalty cannot stand on its own. The penalty order is consequently set aside.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search relating to the share capital addition, the assessment under Section 153A was not sustainable. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.