ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2022

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) had misconceived the facts by invoking Section 249(4)(b) when the assessee had filed a return. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 244A, applicable from 01.06.2016, were not applicable to the assessee's case. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, it was decided that the assessee is entitled to interest on the refund of self-assessment tax.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were indeed passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1) of the Income Tax Act. The receipt of the Tribunal's order by the CIT was established through RTI information.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the loss on sale of shares was a trading loss or capital loss was a debatable issue. Therefore, it was not a mistake apparent from the record that could be rectified under Section 154. The addition of Rs. 6,00,000 was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Mould Manufacturing & Repair expenses was unjustified due to different service natures and lack of a sound basis for fair market value. The deemed dividend addition was also deleted as the loan was obtained on commercial terms with interest, not being gratuitous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal regarding the reduction in book loss was academic and would not cause prejudice. Therefore, the Tribunal was not inclined to adjudicate the matter on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were indeed passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1) of the Income Tax Act. The receipt of the Tribunal's order by the CIT was established through RTI information.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) considering only investments yielding exempt income. The issue of higher taxable income was also restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that expenses claimed for staff uniforms and gifts to associates cannot be considered personal expenses of directors. It also found that the ad hoc disallowance of car depreciation by the AO was unsustainable as no specific personal use was pointed out.

The Tribunal, following its own consistent decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years, upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The issue was found to be squarely covered in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that Ground No. 10, concerning the deduction of Rs. 250,17,14,636/- for technical know-how expenses, was indeed not adjudicated in the previous order. Therefore, the Tribunal recalled its earlier order for the limited purpose of adjudicating this ground.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) had misconceived the facts by invoking Section 249(4)(b) when the assessee had filed a return. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is prospective and applicable from April 1, 2017. Since the search in this case was conducted prior to this date, the amended provisions were not applicable, rendering the assessment order invalid.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Mould Manufacturing & Repair expenses was unjustified due to different service natures and lack of a sound basis for fair market value. The deemed dividend addition was also deleted as the loan was obtained on commercial terms with interest, not being gratuitous.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were indeed passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1) of the Income Tax Act. The receipt of the Tribunal's order by the CIT was established through RTI information.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The assessee's counsel, on instructions, stated that they wished to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were indeed passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1) of the Income Tax Act. The receipt of the Tribunal's order by the CIT was established through RTI information.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including PANs and addresses of creditors, and that transactions were through banking channels. The CIT(A) had inconsistently treated similar evidence for other creditors. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that a statement under Section 132(4) alone is not sufficient for disallowances without corroborating evidence. The disallowances were made on an ad-hoc basis without rejecting the books of accounts or pointing out specific defects.

The Tribunal held that a statement under Section 132(4) alone is not sufficient for disallowances without corroborating evidence. The disallowances were made on an ad-hoc basis without rejecting the books of accounts or pointing out specific defects.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves an opportunity to furnish documentary evidence to establish her claim that the asset was long-term and to claim deduction under Section 54F. The assessment was concluded under Section 144 due to non-furnishing of documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on EDC payments to HUDA, following coordinate bench decisions. For club expenses, it found a possibility of personal benefit to the Managing Director and allowed a partial disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal allowed the penalty appeal for statistical purposes. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after considering the outcome of the restored quantum appeal.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that a statement under Section 132(4) alone is not sufficient for disallowances without corroborating evidence. The disallowances were made on an ad-hoc basis without rejecting the books of accounts or pointing out specific defects.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that if the revisional order under Section 263 is invalid, the consequential assessment order under Section 143(3) also loses its foundation. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal cannot be entertained.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal, following its own consistent decisions in the assessee's own case for prior assessment years, held that depreciation is allowable on goodwill. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.

The Tribunal, following its own consistent decisions in the assessee's own case for prior assessment years, held that depreciation is allowable on goodwill. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) without a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the AO for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1), no disallowance can be made, even if it's deposited after the statutory due date. This decision follows a Coordinate Bench ruling.

The tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked if no exempt income is earned or receivable during the relevant previous year. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Mould Manufacturing & Repair expenses was unjustified due to different service natures and lack of a sound basis for fair market value. The deemed dividend addition was also deleted as the loan was obtained on commercial terms with interest, not being gratuitous.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was disputed by the assessee, who claimed to have applied for and received a certified copy of the assessment order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.