ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal noted that the disputed demand was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable as it was passed ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that outstanding receivables do not automatically constitute a separate international transaction, especially when the impact on working capital and pricing has already been factored in. Any further adjustment based solely on outstanding receivables would distort the picture and re-characterize the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order framed in the name of a deceased person, without impleading the legal representative, is invalid and void ab initio. Proceedings should have been taken against the legal representative as per Section 159 of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue did not refute this claim.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and partly confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. This was because the reopening was based on issues related to one bank account, but the addition was made on another bank account not covered by the reasons recorded for reopening.

The CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice to provide the assessee an opportunity to present her case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere given the lack of explanation or proof of payment from the assessee despite multiple opportunities. The appeal was decided on merits after the assessee failed to appear.

The Tribunal held that the income in question was received after the filing of the original return and was offered for taxation during assessment. Therefore, it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The assessee's cross-objection was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its initial onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act by not disclosing the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's claim of being an entry provider was an admission of illegal activity.

The Tribunal noted that Form No. 5 was issued to the assessee under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal had previously allowed the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54 in quantum proceedings. Since the original disallowance was deleted, the penalty levied on that basis cannot survive.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission for withdrawal of the appeal due to availing the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Ld. DR did not object to this submission.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were deleted.

The ITAT noted that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn and dismissed it.

The Tribunal decided to restore the issue of Rs. 1.40 crore to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the collaboration agreement and compromise. The additions on account of overstated bank liabilities and ceased liability were deleted by the CIT(A) and the Revenue's appeal on these points was dismissed.

The Tribunal decided to restore the issue of Rs. 1.40 crore to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the collaboration agreement and compromise. The additions on account of overstated bank liabilities and ceased liability were deleted by the CIT(A) and the Revenue's appeal on these points was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the adjustments made by the CPC under Section 143(1) were beyond its powers. It also noted that the CIT(A) erred in not following the principle of favoring the assessee when two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision exist.

The Tribunal noted that Form No. 5 was issued to the assessee under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided more opportunities to the assessee to present their case. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that Form No. 5 was issued to the assessee under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that Shri Aseem Gupta controlled the companies that provided the share application money. Furthermore, the statement of Shri Aseem Gupta was retracted, and no independent inquiry or corroborative material was presented by the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer does not make any addition on the primary ground for which assessment was reopened, he cannot make other additions. The reassessment order was quashed as bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.

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

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions, noting that the AO and CIT(A) had not appreciated the facts in their true perspective. Therefore, all issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that since the additions related to corporate guarantee fee and interest on foreign currency were deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty levied on these was unjustified. Similarly, the penalty on the donation to SRF Vidyalaya was also deleted as the disallowance was previously deleted.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the additions contested by the Revenue was Rs. 44,53,440/-, which was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 148 is a condition precedent for making a reassessment order. Since the Revenue failed to prove proper service of the notice, the reassessment order was deemed void ab initio and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without deciding the issue on merits and without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, when deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. This is based on established judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling.