ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2022

The ITAT condoned the delay of 236 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the reasonable cause shown by the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd., which followed the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Shreyas Morakhia. The Tribunal found that if a part of the debt has been offered to tax, Section 36(2)(i) of the Act is satisfied.

The Tribunal decided that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when an assessee voluntarily disallows expenses in a revised return under Section 43B, especially when the AO makes no addition and is unsure about concealment or inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted, the penalty on interest disallowance was not sustainable. Penalties on other disallowances were also deleted, considering them as bona fide errors, debatable issues, or computational mistakes without concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the AO had jurisdiction under Section 154 was not legally sustainable because the ITAT had already passed an order granting relief. The Tribunal noted that the AO would naturally give effect to the ITAT order, and the assessee would receive the necessary relief.

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal allowed Rs. 7 lakhs as explained cash deposits and sustained the addition for the balance. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for further verification.

The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee's error was considered a bona fide mistake, especially since it resulted in a loss and no tax advantage was gained.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar for an entity to shift from claiming benefits under Section 10(23C) to Section 12AA, and the assessee has the right to choose the provision that offers a lighter burden. The Tribunal also noted that no limitation period is prescribed for seeking registration under Section 12A.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed all particulars of its income and had not concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars. The penalty was levied on a claim that was not accepted by the Revenue, which does not automatically attract penalty.

The Tribunal held that the source of cash deposits in the bank account was clearly explained by the disbursement of a housing loan. The purpose of cash withdrawals from the account was irrelevant when the source of deposits was established. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted, the penalty on interest disallowance was not sustainable. Penalties on other disallowances were also deleted, considering them as bona fide errors, debatable issues, or computational mistakes without concealment of income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. Since the facts were identical to earlier years where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee, and no distinguishing facts or higher judicial pronouncements were presented by the Revenue, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that revenue from software sales is not royalty, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. Similarly, cloud service subscriptions were deemed not to be royalty, as they represent consideration for online access and data processing, not a right to use software or equipment.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee after the liquidation order and appointment of an official liquidator were not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A was invalid. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The assessee was directed to furnish an affidavit and corroborative evidence to prove the income was offered under the correct PAN and TDS was claimed only by the entity with the correct PAN.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 was explained by the sale of ancestral land, as the conveyance deed was executed shortly after the deposit. For the remaining Rs. 15,20,000, the Tribunal found that affidavits from individuals who advanced the money, though not fully investigated by the AO, provided some evidentiary value. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not made a peak credit addition despite having bank statements.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed a well-reasoned order in deleting the additions made by the AO based solely on the auditor's qualifications. The Revenue failed to point out any fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar to shifting between Section 10(23C) and Section 12AA, and no specific rationale is required for applying for registration after many years. The Tribunal also noted that the Commissioner did not make definite findings on the objects and genuineness of the activities.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not record any dissatisfaction with the assessee's calculation of disallowance. Considering the facts, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 13,31,414/-.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) failed to consider the explanation regarding cash withdrawals and the correct contractual receipts as per Form 26AS. The additions were deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to cash deposits as not pressed. For the expenses and sundry creditors, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and deleted the additions, finding that the expenses were incurred on behalf of RIL and reimbursed.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to cash deposits as not pressed. For the expenses and sundry creditors, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and deleted the additions, finding that the expenses were incurred on behalf of RIL and reimbursed.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to cash deposits as not pressed. For the expenses and sundry creditors, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and deleted the additions, finding that the expenses were incurred on behalf of RIL and reimbursed.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A was invalid. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted, the penalty on interest disallowance was not sustainable. Penalties on other disallowances were also deleted, considering them as bona fide errors, debatable issues, or computational mistakes without concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was too harsh in dismissing the appeal on limitation without considering the merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal allowed Rs. 7 lakhs as explained cash deposits and sustained the addition for the balance. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for further verification.

The Tribunal held that since the addition forming the basis of the penalty has been deleted, the penalty levied is no longer sustainable. Consequently, the penalty order is set aside.

The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E is leviable only when there is an enabling provision in Section 200A, which was introduced effective June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of fee prior to this date was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee after the liquidation order and appointment of an official liquidator were not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal found the assessee's conduct to be negligent and disrespectful to judicial proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were justified based on information received from the Investigation Wing. Since the assessee failed to provide any material to counter the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the additions under Section 68, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not dispute the assessee's agricultural activities and that the AO had accepted agricultural income in a prior year. Therefore, the additions were deleted as unjustified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the cash credits in question were not related to the statements of the individuals who admitted to providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided sufficient explanations and documentation for these credits.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee after the liquidation order and appointment of an official liquidator were not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was done without proper application of mind, as the AO did not issue notice to the other joint account holder (the assessee's wife). The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to verify the assessee's claim regarding the joint account.

The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E is leviable only when there is an enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act, which came into effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of fee prior to this date was not permissible.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to cash deposits as not pressed. For the expenses and sundry creditors, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and deleted the additions, finding that the expenses were incurred on behalf of RIL and reimbursed.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified as the assessee had sufficient sources from gifts and income to save the amount. The Tribunal deleted the addition, allowing the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's bona fide belief and potential technical glitches, the manual appeal should be treated as electronically filed and decided on merits. The CIT(A) should afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to cash deposits as not pressed. For the expenses and sundry creditors, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and deleted the additions, finding that the expenses were incurred on behalf of RIL and reimbursed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee after the liquidation order and appointment of an official liquidator were not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to cash deposits as not pressed. For the expenses and sundry creditors, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and deleted the additions, finding that the expenses were incurred on behalf of RIL and reimbursed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was found to be bad in law by the Tribunal itself, the penalty levied based on that assessment order should also fall. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to cash deposits as not pressed. For the expenses and sundry creditors, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and deleted the additions, finding that the expenses were incurred on behalf of RIL and reimbursed.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to cash deposits as not pressed. For the expenses and sundry creditors, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and deleted the additions, finding that the expenses were incurred on behalf of RIL and reimbursed.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to cash deposits as not pressed. For the expenses and sundry creditors, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and deleted the additions, finding that the expenses were incurred on behalf of RIL and reimbursed.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application.