ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2022

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 assessee is eligible for additional depreciation on power generation, following previous decisions. The issue regarding depreciation on railway sidings was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act leads to the deemed withdrawal of the pending appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

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 no addition is warranted in the case of an unabated assessment in the absence of seizure of any incriminating materials. The statement recorded under Section 132(4) does not constitute incriminating material for the purpose of Section 153A if no documents were found.

The Tribunal held that no addition is warranted in the case of an unabated assessment in the absence of seizure of any incriminating materials. The statement recorded under Section 132(4) does not constitute incriminating material for the purpose of Section 153A if no documents were found.

The Tribunal held that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings on incorrect facts, as the assessee had purchased, not sold, the property. The CIT(A) also erred by dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the facts and principles of natural justice.

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, following a co-ordinate bench's decision for a prior assessment year, set aside the issue concerning the adjustment due to change in depreciation rate to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that higher depreciation rates must be based on bona fide technological evaluation by a competent person.

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 CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions made by the AO as the AO accepted the bills and payments during the remand proceedings. The addition on account of Kone Elevator was also directed to be deleted.

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 assessee is eligible for additional depreciation on power generation, relying on previous decisions. The issue regarding depreciation on railway sidings was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal as the matter had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Forms 3 and 4 were issued, confirming the settlement.

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 restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to comply promptly with future notices.

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 AO was justified in invoking Section 147/148 as the assessee failed to file a return for the second PAN, despite opening a bank account with it. The Tribunal also upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with statutory notices, finding no reasonable cause for the assessee's failure.

The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in invoking Section 147/148 as the assessee failed to file a return for the second PAN, despite opening a bank account with it. The Tribunal also upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with statutory notices, finding no reasonable cause for the assessee's failure.

The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in invoking Section 147/148 as the assessee failed to file a return for the second PAN, despite opening a bank account with it. The Tribunal also upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with statutory notices, finding no reasonable cause for the assessee's failure.

The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in invoking Section 147/148 as the assessee failed to file a return for the second PAN, despite opening a bank account with it. The Tribunal also upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with statutory notices, finding no reasonable cause for the assessee's failure.

The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in invoking Section 147/148 as the assessee failed to file a return for the second PAN, despite opening a bank account with it. The Tribunal also upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with statutory notices, finding no reasonable cause for the assessee's failure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for claiming 100% deduction was not plausible and that the authorities below were justified in rejecting it. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee knowingly filed inaccurate particulars of income.

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 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 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 reassessment order was unsustainable as the AO failed to record reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147 and obtain mandatory approval under Section 151. Therefore, the reassessment order was liable to be quashed.

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 directed that for Section 14A disallowance, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered. It affirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding depreciation on software, treating it as integral to computer equipment. The Tribunal allowed the interest on late deposit of taxes as a compensatory business expenditure.

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 reassessment proceedings were initiated by a non-jurisdictional officer and that the assessee's objections were not properly addressed. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed as bad in law.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- as unexplained income. It was held that the document, found at the assessee's premises, created a presumption under Section 292C, and the assessee failed to discharge the onus of explanation.

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.