ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2022

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 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 no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. This decision followed a coordinate bench's ruling on identical facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as the assessee failed to appear or provide any material to controvert the findings of the CIT(A). The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) by passing an ex-parte order without deciding on merits and violating principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

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), it is an allowable deduction. Therefore, no disallowance can be made for delayed deposit.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's capital and reserves exceeded the investments yielding exempt income, and interest earned was more than interest paid. Therefore, no borrowed funds were used for these investments, and no part of interest expenditure was attributable to them.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's capital and reserves exceeded the investments yielding exempt income, and interest earned was more than interest paid. Therefore, no borrowed funds were used for these investments, and no part of interest expenditure was attributable to them.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of cost and indexation based on the original cost and acquisition date of the property by his deceased father. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the capital gains accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of salary was based on conjectures and the compensation received for delay in construction was a capital receipt, not taxable as revenue.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was completed before the search and no incriminating material was found, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. The challenge to the validity of the search itself was dismissed as outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the premium payable on redemption of debentures is an expenditure allowable on a proportionate basis over the period of maturity, as per Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the date of the plot buyer's agreement (30.12.2006) should be considered the acquisition date for computing capital gains and indexation benefits, aligning with various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

As per Section 4(2) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, an appeal pending before the Tribunal is deemed to have been withdrawn upon the issuance of a certificate under Section 5(1) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act and principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act and principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act and principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act and principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer denied the claim based on the assessee not proving the units were a single residential unit, and the Commissioner partly allowed it relying on pre-amendment judgments. The Tribunal noted the amendment to Section 54 requiring 'one residential house' was applicable. Therefore, the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated under. This indicates a non-application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the DRP failed to consider its objections and additional evidence. The DRP's directions were found to be non-speaking and lacking in application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the share trading transactions and commercial expediency for the borrowed funds used for FDRs. The grounds related to these disallowances were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from software distribution are not royalty income, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. The Tribunal also found no cogent basis for the existence of a PE in India.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee's claim was bonafide and all material facts were disclosed. The Tribunal noted that the claim was allowed in the subsequent assessment year, further supporting the bonafide nature of the claim.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's capital and reserves exceeded the investments yielding exempt income, and interest earned was more than interest paid. Therefore, no borrowed funds were used for these investments, and no part of interest expenditure was attributable to them.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the CPC for late deposit of employee's contribution towards PF and ESI, when deposited before the filing of the return of income, was not justified. The amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 was held not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's capital and reserves exceeded the investments yielding exempt income, and interest earned was more than interest paid. Therefore, no borrowed funds were used for these investments, and no part of interest expenditure was attributable to them.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to ESI & PF is covered by the Delhi High Court's judgment. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CPC and confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition for late deposit of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, when deposited before the due date of filing the return, is not justified. The amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 was held not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC made under Section 143(1) is not permissible, especially when supported by binding judicial precedent. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from software distribution are not royalty income, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. The Tribunal also found no cogent basis for the existence of a PE in India.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed both certified and ordinary copies of the CIT(A)'s order. Due to the non-compliance and repeated non-appearances, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to availing the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Ld. DR did not object to this request.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received from the distribution/supply of software are not royalty income, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. The Tribunal also found no cogent basis for the existence of a PE in India.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) who had upheld the disallowance of capitalized interest expenditure. The issue had been decided against the assessee in a prior assessment year.

The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court judgment in PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., which held that belated payment of employee's EPF and ESI is not to be treated as deemed income of the employer. Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. The explanations provided were found to be vague and contradictory, and the collateral proceedings did not adequately justify the prolonged delay.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received from the distribution/supply of software are not royalty income, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. The Tribunal also found no cogent basis for the existence of a PE in India.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. The explanations provided were found to be vague and contradictory, and the collateral proceedings did not adequately justify the prolonged delay.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. The explanations provided were found to be vague and contradictory, and the collateral proceedings did not adequately justify the prolonged delay.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from software distribution are not royalty income, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. The Tribunal also found no cogent basis for the existence of a PE in India.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from software distribution are not royalty income, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. The Tribunal also found no cogent basis for the existence of a PE in India.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the Delhi High Court judgment in PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. The legislative intent is to allow expenditure when payment is actually made, not to treat belated payments as deemed income.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from software distribution are not royalty income, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. The Tribunal also found no cogent basis for the existence of a PE in India.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Given that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the department had issued Form No. 5, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal followed the ratio laid down in its previous order for the assessee's own case. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal decided to follow the ratio laid down in the previous order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received from the distribution/supply of software are not royalty income, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. The Tribunal also found no cogent basis for the existence of a PE in India.