ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to a previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15. Following that precedent, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to decide in line with the earlier ITAT order.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty, holding that the assessee could not be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal noted that the major part of the addition was deleted in the quantum appeal and the remaining amount was repaid.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking in factual analysis regarding the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal noted that the party providing the funds was not traceable and had meager transactions, raising doubts about the source of funds.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition without proper verification and opportunity to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to demonstrate the inclusion of excess stock.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition without proper verification and opportunity to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to demonstrate the inclusion of excess stock.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition without proper verification and opportunity to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to demonstrate the inclusion of excess stock.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition without proper verification and opportunity to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to demonstrate the inclusion of excess stock.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the VSV Scheme, and a coordinate bench had allowed withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issue on merits and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision by passing a speaking order.

The Tribunal directed the assessee to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund and approach the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. The CIT(A) was directed to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the transaction was a classic case of circuitous rotation of unaccounted money due to the non-existent nature of the lender and lack of creditworthiness.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT, all proceedings in any court of law or tribunal cannot continue. Therefore, continuing the present appeals would serve no useful purpose.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT, all proceedings in any court of law or tribunal cannot continue. Therefore, continuing the present appeals would serve no useful purpose.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT, all proceedings in any court of law or tribunal cannot continue. Therefore, continuing the present appeals would serve no useful purpose.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT, all proceedings in any court of law or tribunal cannot continue. Therefore, continuing the present appeals would serve no useful purpose.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition without proper verification and opportunity to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to demonstrate the inclusion of excess stock.

The Tribunal directed the assessee to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund and allowed the assessee to approach the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing denovo. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to provide substantiating evidence for its claims and expenses. The Assessing Officer was justified in making additions based on best judgment assessment due to non-compliance.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.

The Tribunal held that the land sold was agricultural land and not a capital asset as per Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as agricultural operations were carried out till the sale. The change in land use was due to the purchaser's intention and did not alter its character in the seller's hands.

The Tribunal held that merely reflecting TDS in Form 26AS does not prove income receipt. The onus is on the revenue to prove receipt, especially when the assessee has provided an affidavit and bank statements showing no such credit, and the revenue has not conducted independent inquiries.

The Tribunal, agreeing with both parties, set aside the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The ITAT held that penalty orders passed under Section 271C by the Joint Commissioner are not appealable before the Tribunal. The correct forum for appeal is the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) as per Section 246A(1)(n).

The ITAT held that penalty orders passed under Section 271C by the Joint Commissioner are not appealable before the Tribunal. The correct forum for appeal is the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) as per Section 246A(1)(n).

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it was issued in a stereotyped format without striking off the irrelevant limb, making it vague. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without granting reasonable time for adjournment. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the AO was justified in initiating proceedings under Section 153C based on the valuation report, the addition made was not sustainable due to lack of corroborating evidence and the report's irrelevance to the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex-parte. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, without expressing an opinion on the merits. A token cost was imposed on the assessee for negligence in responding to statutory notices.

The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in the case of the recipient of services (Orient Craft Ltd.) which found the job work expenditure to be genuine. Consequently, the basis for additions made in the hands of the vendor assessee did not survive.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present their case. This was granted on the condition of the assessee depositing Rs. 25,000/- as costs.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat forex gain/loss as non-operating, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. It also upheld the exclusion of certain comparables based on functional dissimilarity and previous ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal found material discrepancies in the orders of the AO and CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders on the issues of unsecured loans and share capital additions and restored them to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IC was unsustainable as the conditions for claiming the deduction had been examined and fulfilled in earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for deduction on enhanced profits arising from other disallowances.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not thoroughly examined the assessee's contentions and evidence regarding the partnership firm's bank accounts. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the TDS disallowance, following previous decisions. However, the disallowance of the Section 80G donation was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment was processed under section 143(1) and the reopening was sought after four years, the approval for issuing the notice under section 148 should have been obtained from the Joint Commissioner (JCIT) as per section 151(2). The approval was granted by the Commissioner (CIT), which was not the prescribed authority. Therefore, the notice under section 148 and the subsequent assessment order were invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the TDS disallowance, following previous decisions in favor of the assessee. The donation disallowance was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not thoroughly examined the assessee's contentions and evidence regarding the partnership firm's bank accounts. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in the case of the recipient of services (Orient Craft Ltd.) which found the job work expenditure to be genuine. Consequently, the basis for additions made in the hands of the vendor assessee did not survive.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had no exempt income, the disallowance and addition under Section 14A read with Rule 8D were not sustainable. The Revenue's appeal lacked substance.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were a classic case of bogus penny stock transactions where unaccounted money was routed as exempt income. The fantastic increase in share price was beyond human probability, and the orders of the revenue authorities were detailed and supported by case laws.

The Tribunal held that in cases where both quantum and penalty appeals are pending, and the quantum appeal is settled under VSVS, the penalty appeal is also to be disposed of accordingly. The settlement of the quantum appeal under VSVS necessitates the dismissal of the related penalty appeal.

The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in the case of the recipient of services (Orient Craft Ltd.) which found the job work expenditure to be genuine. Consequently, the basis for additions made in the hands of the vendor assessee did not survive.

The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in the case of the recipient of services (Orient Craft Ltd.) which found the job work expenditure to be genuine. Consequently, the basis for additions made in the hands of the vendor assessee did not survive.

The Tribunal held that the AO's power to make additions in consequential proceedings under Section 263 is confined to the issues specified in the revisional order. Additions made on matters not covered by the revisional directions are not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were a classic case of bogus penny stock transactions where unaccounted money was routed as exempt income. The fantastic increase in share price was beyond human probability, and the orders of the revenue authorities were detailed and supported by case laws.

The Tribunal held that losses from trading in futures and derivatives are not speculative losses under Explanation to Section 73. Following Supreme Court and other High Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.