ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal found a deficiency of facts regarding the actual incurring of expenditure and decided that the issue needed further examination by the Assessing Officer. The matter was set aside to the AO for a detailed review of the books of accounts, reversal entries, bills, and vouchers.

The Tribunal held that consultancy charges incurred for strategic investments and for advice related to regular business activities are allowable as revenue expenditure. It also directed that disallowance under Section 14A should only consider investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the fall in gross profit was justified due to renovations and reduced occupancy, and that the deemed dividend addition was not applicable as the assessee was not a shareholder in the companies from which advances were received. The CIT(A)'s order was affirmed.

The Tribunal held that the income from software sales and related support services is not taxable as royalty or FTS under the India-Singapore tax treaty. This decision followed a co-ordinate bench ruling for a prior assessment year concerning the same assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to obtain the mandatory approval under Section 151 before issuing the notice under Section 148. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings, notice, and assessment order were quashed for being unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the penalty. It noted that similar issues had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years by the ITAT, indicating the issue was debatable and the assessee acted in good faith.

The Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal of the appeal after the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals regarding the default under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) were allowed, the basis for the penalty proceedings was removed. Therefore, the penalty order could not stand on its own.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get an opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was sent back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a hearing opportunity before passing an order.

The Tribunal held that Section 13(1)(b) applies to charitable societies, not religious societies. Since the assessee was considered a religious society, there was no violation of the said section. Therefore, the exemption was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's conduct was irresponsible and non-cooperative, as they failed to substantiate the delay or rectify defects. The appeals were dismissed in limine due to being filed beyond the limitation period and for not depositing the appeal fees correctly.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals regarding the default under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) were allowed, the basis for the penalty proceedings was removed. Therefore, the penalty order could not stand on its own.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals regarding the default under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) were allowed, the basis for the penalty proceedings was removed. Therefore, the penalty order could not stand on its own.

The Tribunal found that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by remanding the matter. Therefore, the appeal was sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that disallowance under Section 14A should be limited to exempt income and that the AO must first satisfy himself before making a disallowance. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover its investments yielding exempt income, negating the need for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) & (ii).

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds exceeding its investments yielding exempt income, thus disallowance of interest under the second limb of Rule 8D was not justified. The Tribunal also directed re-computation of the disallowance under the third limb, restricting it to the actual non-taxable investment.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals regarding the default under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) were allowed, the basis for the penalty proceedings was removed. Therefore, the penalty order could not stand on its own.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The matter had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal held that following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Aarham Softronics, a substantial expansion of an industrial unit entitles the assessee to claim 100% deduction under Section 80IC again. Therefore, the assessee's claim for 100% deduction was allowed.

The Tribunal held that employee's contributions to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, are allowable deductions. Therefore, no disallowance can be made for belated payments.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on investigations from subsequent years and did not adequately examine the facts for the relevant year. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the AO for a proper examination of the lender.

The Tribunal held that since the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, which was the basis for the consequential proceedings, has been quashed, the present appeal has become infructuous and cannot survive.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates a minimum tax effect of Rs. 50 lacs for departmental appeals. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals regarding the default under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) were allowed, the basis for the penalty proceedings was removed. Therefore, the penalty order could not stand on its own.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate a specific ground raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the assessment in the absence of incriminating material. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment orders were quashed, the penalty imposed on enhancements made in those non-existent proceedings lacked foundation and was unsustainable in law. Therefore, the penalties were rendered invalid.

The Tribunal held that the discrepancies in sugar and molasses stock were due to the seizure of books and natural variations, not unaccounted production. For cash, a portion of the addition was remitted back to the AO for further examination.

The Tribunal held that the income from software sales and related support services is not taxable as royalty or FTS under the India-Singapore tax treaty. This decision followed a co-ordinate bench ruling for a prior assessment year concerning the same assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals regarding the default under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) were allowed, the basis for the penalty proceedings was removed. Therefore, the penalty order could not stand on its own.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals regarding the default under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) were allowed, the basis for the penalty proceedings was removed. Therefore, the penalty order could not stand on its own.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable as there was no incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A) correctly followed jurisdictional High Court decisions in deleting the additions.

The Tribunal held that the lease equalization charges were not allowable as a uniform deduction over the lease period. However, it allowed the logo development expenses as revenue expenditure, as the project was abandoned mid-way without creating any new asset.

The Tribunal held that provisions for warranty are generally allowable if based on past experience and a reliable estimate, citing Supreme Court judgments. Previous ITAT decisions for the assessee and similar cases allowed such provisions.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment orders were quashed, the penalty imposed on enhancements made in those non-existent proceedings lacked foundation and was unsustainable in law. Therefore, the penalties were rendered invalid.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment orders were quashed, the penalty imposed on enhancements made in those non-existent proceedings lacked foundation and was unsustainable in law. Therefore, the penalties were rendered invalid.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment orders were quashed, the penalty imposed on enhancements made in those non-existent proceedings lacked foundation and was unsustainable in law. Therefore, the penalties were rendered invalid.

The Tribunal held that following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Aarham Softronics, a substantial expansion of an industrial unit entitles the assessee to claim 100% deduction under Section 80IC again. Therefore, the assessee's claim for 100% deduction was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the income from software sales and related support services is not taxable as royalty or FTS under the India-Singapore tax treaty. This decision followed a co-ordinate bench ruling for a prior assessment year concerning the same assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when income is assessed on an estimated basis, especially when the estimation of profit on alleged non-genuine purchases is ad-hoc. Following various High Court and Tribunal decisions, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment orders were quashed, the penalty imposed on enhancements made in those non-existent proceedings lacked foundation and was unsustainable in law. Therefore, the penalties were rendered invalid.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 143(2) was deemed to be served within the stipulated time as per the General Clauses Act. However, it found that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were approximations without tangible material and that the Assessing Officer had not observed the requisites of Section 144.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had adjudicated the appeal based on incorrect facts regarding the nature of services rendered by the assessee. The CIT(A) wrongly assumed the services were marketing or reservation-related, instead of design consultancy.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, as evidenced by Form 5 issued by the designated authority. Therefore, the assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision for AY 2006-07, where identical issues regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings and the merits of the addition were decided in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for TDS credit is based on documents like salary slips, the Revenue's doubt regarding the actual deduction and remittance needs to be investigated. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for an inquiry with the employer.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) also failed to address issues with visible attachments.

The Tribunal held that the delay was not inordinate and the CIT(A) should have condoned it without being hyper-technical, especially given the assessee's claim of non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the designated authority had issued Form 5. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had adjudicated the appeal based on incorrect facts regarding the nature of services provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.