ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on any incriminating material found from the assessee's premises for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 153A was bad in law.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits. This was done because similar appeals where substantive additions were made had been restored to the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The monetary limit for appeals before the Tribunal was Rs. 50,00,000/-, and the tax effect in this case was below that limit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessees with a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessees with a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessees with a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessees with a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a charitable trust that has not claimed benefits under Section 11 & 12 and filed returns as an AOP, is still entitled to claim deductions under Chapter VI-A. Following a precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the claimed deduction.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make additions for income other than that for which the assessment was reopened under Section 147. Following judicial precedents, the addition of Rs. 6,49,177/- was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition in the case of Sh. Arun Duggal had already been dealt with by a co-ordinate bench. Consequently, the revenue's appeals, which sought to uphold protective additions that were deleted by the CIT(A), were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition in the case of Sh. Arun Duggal had already been dealt with by a co-ordinate bench. Consequently, the revenue's appeals, which sought to uphold protective additions that were deleted by the CIT(A), were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and issued a show cause notice after reviewing the assessee's return and reply. The Tribunal distinguished the cases relied upon by the CIT(A) as factually different.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to file additional evidence under Rule 29 of IT(AT) Rules, 1963. However, the assessee must demonstrate sufficient reason for not filing the evidence earlier.

The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition in the case of Sh. Arun Duggal had already been dealt with by a co-ordinate bench. Consequently, the revenue's appeals, which sought to uphold protective additions that were deleted by the CIT(A), were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on surmises and conjectures, as the primary evidence and admissions were from the assessee's son. Therefore, the additions should have been made in the son's hands, not the assessee's.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271C for non-deduction of TDS on EDC payments to HUDA was not sustainable. It relied on previous coordinate bench decisions and the principle of bonafide belief in the absence of clear guidelines prior to a specific CBDT clarification.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271C was not sustainable. It relied on coordinate benches' decisions which found no default in non-deduction of TDS on EDC payments to HUDA, citing a bonafide belief due to lack of clarity and directions from government authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the penalty dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the liability discharged. Therefore, the penalty no longer survived.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this condition.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on account of provision for liquidated damages was deleted in the quantum appeal, the basis for penalty on that count ceased to exist. Furthermore, the penalty notice was found to be ambiguous regarding the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS) and the Designated Authority had issued Form-5. The appeal was therefore rendered infructuous and treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the enhanced value of the land and not taxable as interest income. The Supreme Court judgments in CIT Vs. Ghanshyam HUF and Union of India Vs. Hari Singh & ors were relied upon.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, with a direction to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as he was unaware of the SARFEASI Act provisions and the facts of the case. The sale was conducted by SBI under SARFEASI Act to recover dues, and the price realized was considered fair market value.

The Tribunal found a lacuna in the PCIT's order as it relied on an amendment to Section 263 that was not retrospective for the assessment year in question. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the PCIT for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) made additions without sufficient material or specific reasons. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the deletion of the sustained addition.

The Tribunal held that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the effect of a recent amendment to Section 14A. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the file back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after considering the observations.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessee and the revenue agreed that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the VSVS. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the notices from the CIT(A) were returned with an endorsement indicating the office was closed, and the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without hearing the assessee. Therefore, the ITAT restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The dispute arising in the appeal was considered resolved.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are not applicable to assessment years preceding 2021-22. The assessee deposited the contributions within the time allowed under Section 43B, i.e., up to the due date for filing the income tax return.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the reasonable cause of the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown. The appeal was then taken up for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition made for delayed deposit of employee's PF and ESI contributions was not justified, as the amounts were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 was held not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issue on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication with a speaking order.

Since the quantum addition was deleted by the ITAT, there was no basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that a Form No. 5 was issued for full and final settlement of taxes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders, following a Delhi High Court judgment. The High Court had held that if incriminating material pertains to a person other than the one searched, the assessment must be framed under Section 153C, not 153A.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders, following a Delhi High Court judgment. The High Court had held that if incriminating material pertains to a person other than the one searched, the assessment must be framed under Section 153C, not 153A.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders, following a Delhi High Court judgment. The High Court had held that if incriminating material pertains to a person other than the one searched, the assessment must be framed under Section 153C, not 153A.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271C for non-deduction of TDS on EDC payments to HUDA was not sustainable. It relied on previous coordinate bench decisions and the principle of bonafide belief in the absence of clear guidelines prior to a specific CBDT clarification.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders, following a Delhi High Court judgment. The High Court had held that if incriminating material pertains to a person other than the one searched, the assessment must be framed under Section 153C, not 153A.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders, following a Delhi High Court judgment. The High Court had held that if incriminating material pertains to a person other than the one searched, the assessment must be framed under Section 153C, not 153A.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders, following a Delhi High Court judgment. The High Court had held that if incriminating material pertains to a person other than the one searched, the assessment must be framed under Section 153C, not 153A.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders, following a Delhi High Court judgment. The High Court had held that if incriminating material pertains to a person other than the one searched, the assessment must be framed under Section 153C, not 153A.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271C for non-deduction of TDS on EDC payments to HUDA was not sustainable. It relied on previous coordinate bench decisions and the principle of bonafide belief in the absence of clear guidelines prior to a specific CBDT clarification.

The Tribunal held that the sale of software products does not constitute royalty income, following Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions. It also held that cloud services subscription income is not royalty income, referencing previous Tribunal rulings.