ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. It restored the issue of deduction under Section 10AA to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verifying the fulfillment of conditions, and directed the Assessing Officer to allow TDS credit based on records.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54 restricting investment to India was effective from April 1, 2015, and thus applied prospectively. As the assessee invested in the Dubai property before this amendment, they were eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the AO's actions were contrary to the mandates of Sections 92CA(4) and 144C(13) of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of royalty payments for the 3DX model was resolved by a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) settlement between India and the UK.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the transactions were not genuine investments but accommodation entries. The abnormal appreciation in share prices and the nature of the companies involved, identified as penny stocks, supported the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the assessee did not wish to contest the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the assessee did not wish to contest the appeals.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that it would be hyper-technical to reject the assessee's claim for deletion of suo motu addition in the absence of an additional ground, as the CIT(A) had accepted the principle that such contributions are deductible if paid before the due date of filing the return. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order itself was quashed by a coordinate bench, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) could not survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits to the assessee's income. The assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to prove the source of the deposits or that the bank account did not belong to him.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form-5. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on conjectures and surmises, without objectively verifying the evidence provided by the assessee. Statistical data alone is not conclusive proof of crop yield, and the Revenue failed to bring adverse material to rebut the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not justified if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that for proceedings under Section 153C, the six preceding assessment years should be reckoned from the date of recording the satisfaction note, not the date of the search. Therefore, the assessment for AY 2006-07 was beyond the permissible period.

The Tribunal found that the DRP had accepted that the assessee did not have a PE in India. However, crucial factual aspects regarding the duration of drivers' stay and the applicability of Article 17 (or 16 as per the tribunal) of the DTAA needed further examination.

The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition solely based on the difference in stock figures. However, to account for potential revenue leakage due to a low Net Profit (NP) rate, a revised addition was directed.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for club expenses, following its consistent past decisions. For prior period expenses, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, agreeing with the assessee's submission based on previous rulings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law because the notice issued under Section 274 did not specifically state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was obliterated.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law because the notice issued under Section 274 did not specifically state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was obliterated.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law because the notice issued under Section 274 did not specifically state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was obliterated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's absence was due to a bona fide cause, considering his age, health issues, and the medical evidence presented. Therefore, the penalty imposed for non-appearance was cancelled.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's petition for condonation of delay. It found that the assessee's explanation for the delay was not bonafide or reasonable, especially considering their business connections and professional representation.

The Tribunal found that the DRP had accepted that the assessee did not have a PE in India. However, crucial factual aspects regarding the duration of drivers' stay and the applicability of Article 17 (or 16 as per the tribunal) of the DTAA needed further examination.