ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2022

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 reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as the AO had tangible material and had disposed of the assessee's objections. The addition under Section 68 was also upheld due to the lack of contrary material from the assessee.

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 rental income from the commercial premises, which was consistently treated as a fixed capital asset and not stock-in-trade, should be assessed as income from house property. The deduction under Section 24(a) was therefore allowable.

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 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 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 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 a defective notice under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act vitiates the Assessing Officer's assumption of jurisdiction to levy penalty. Following binding precedents, the penalty order was quashed.

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 deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments. It also restricted the disallowance of administrative expenditure to the amount voluntarily disallowed by the assessee.

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 if the assessee has sufficient own funds exceeding the investments yielding tax-free income, no disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A can be made. The CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance.

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 allowed the assessee to withdraw grounds of appeal related to transfer pricing adjustments. This was permitted because the assessee had entered into an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) covering the disputed transactions.

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 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 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 since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 reopening of assessment was bad in law because the AO failed to apply his mind to the facts and relied on factually incorrect premises. The approval for reopening was also mechanically granted without due application of mind.

The Tribunal held that since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that since the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. 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 disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.