ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that for a concluded assessment year, 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 also found that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence of loan repayment and TDS on interest.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that for a concluded assessment year, 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 also found that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence of loan repayment and TDS on interest.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex parte without granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish its reply and supporting evidence. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities misinterpreted the previous ITAT order by adding basis points to the LIBOR rate. The Tribunal reiterated that only the LIBOR rate of the relevant currency should be applied as per its earlier direction.

The Tribunal held that when the difference between the sale consideration and the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority (or DVO) is less than 10%, it should be ignored. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities misinterpreted the previous ITAT order by adding basis points to the LIBOR rate. The Tribunal reiterated that only the LIBOR rate of the relevant currency should be applied as per its earlier direction.

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities erred in adding basis points to the LIBOR rate, as the ITAT's previous order clearly directed the application of only the LIBOR rate of the relevant currency. The revenue's interpretation was not in line with the ITAT's specific directions.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business are allowable as deduction, irrespective of whether they result in immediate income. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be without error.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte assessment orders and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent their case with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte assessment orders and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent their case with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee can claim deduction under Section 54 only for the purchase or construction of a single residential house, not multiple properties in different locations. The reliance on a previous case was deemed inapplicable.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a due opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s approach of dismissing the appeal without considering the merits was incorrect. The Tribunal allowed the grounds related to procedural fairness and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after providing an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under section 143(3)/144 read with section 147 was bad in law because no notice under section 143(2) was served on the assessee. The absence of this notice is not a curable defect.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's disallowance for vehicle-related expenses was justified to some extent due to lack of vouchers, the 10% disallowance was excessive and reduced it to 5%. For the PF/ESI contribution issue, the Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision and confirmed the deletion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the provision for inventory obsolescence is allowable as a deduction, following accounting standards and judicial precedents. It also held that the excise duty subsidy is a capital receipt, relying on Supreme Court decisions regarding incentives for industrial development.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte assessment orders and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent their case with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the compensation paid was a revenue expenditure, as it was paid to the owner of the property where the assessee's business was run, pursuant to a registered agreement. The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the first proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Act, which was introduced retrospectively, allows the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 even if registration is granted after the assessment proceedings are pending. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no valid reason to interfere. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted as the CIT(A) found that expenses were not clubbed to exceed the threshold. The change in closing stock valuation was also deemed justified based on expert certificate and consistency.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte assessment orders and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent their case with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte assessment orders and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent their case with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to section 112(1) of the Act, allowing the capital gain to be taxed at 10%. This decision was based on a binding precedent from the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte assessment orders and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent their case with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte assessment orders and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent their case with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim the balance additional depreciation in the succeeding assessment year, even before the legislative amendment. The amendment was considered clarificatory in nature.

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 considered the request of the assessee and, with no objection from the Department, permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make an addition on an issue that was not the subject matter of the reopening of assessment. The addition of sundry creditors was unsustainable as it was unrelated to the reason for reopening.

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 notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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 AO cannot make additions on issues not forming the basis of the original reassessment notice. Any additions made on grounds other than those recorded in the reasons to believe are unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition on account of sourcing business profit was based on surmises and conjectures without supporting evidence, and the CIT(A)'s deletion was justified. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the assessee had already disallowed expenses, and no further disallowance was warranted as no relatable expenses were incurred for earning exempt income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no fallacy in the findings. The CIT(A) had noted that the AO failed to identify any non-allowable bills or defects in the provided evidence, and the disallowance was ad-hoc.

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 ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and passing a non-speaking order. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) lacked the power to dismiss an appeal solely for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly treated the profit from the sale of flats as capital gains, not business income, considering the long holding period and lack of evidence for an adventure in trade. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the conditions for Section 54 exemption were met, including the utilization of sale proceeds for the new property.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was in a standard format without striking off irrelevant clauses, indicating a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty orders were deleted.

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 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 held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was in a standard format without striking off irrelevant clauses, indicating a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty orders were deleted.

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.