ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(Exemptions) to re-examine the issue after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee may not have informed the AO about the change of address, imposing penalty for each non-compliance was excessive. The penalty should be levied only for the first default, considering the same nature of default.

The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB is directory in nature, not mandatory. Since the report was filed before the completion of assessment, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeal was deemed to have been withdrawn and was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the quantum of exempt income earned during the year, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, was held to be prospective.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(Appeals) that the Assessee Education Society was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12. This was based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case by the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had indulged in bogus share transactions through non-existent/shell companies.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant before rejecting the application, which is a mandatory requirement. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's conduct demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the matter and that the evidence regarding the genuineness of the society's activities was deficient. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed.

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

The Tribunal held that since the AO did not make any addition for unpaid gratuity in the final assessment order after due inquiry, the adjustment made by the CPC in the processing intimation does not survive. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to be relieved from this adjustment.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's assumption of TDS was not acceptable without actual deduction and deposit, his alternative claim to reduce the income by the amount not actually received and offered to tax merited consideration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to reduce the disputed amount from the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis for the penalties were deleted, the penalties themselves could not survive. Therefore, the deletion of penalties by the Commissioner was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not warranted as the payment was made to a senior citizen for agricultural land and the vendor insisted on cash, meeting the exceptions under Rule 6DD.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 50 lakhs. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is allowable on the entire expenditure incurred on the approved in-house R&D facility, not just the amount certified by DSIR. Decisions of various High Courts supported this view.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(Appeals) that the Assessee Education Society was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12. This was based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case by the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) renders the reassessment order void ab initio and bad in law. Following precedent from the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(Appeals) that the Assessee Education Society was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12. This was based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case by the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal held that the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is allowable on the entire expenditure incurred on the approved in-house R&D facility, not just the amount certified by DSIR. Decisions of various High Courts supported this view.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), agreeing that the issues raised by the assessee were not rectifiable under Section 154 of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), agreeing that the issues raised by the assessee were not rectifiable under Section 154 of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), agreeing that the issues raised by the assessee were not rectifiable under Section 154 of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not warranted as the payment was made to a senior citizen for agricultural land and the vendor insisted on cash, meeting the exceptions under Rule 6DD.

The Tribunal noted contradictory facts regarding the commission paid by the payer company and the amount accounted for by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for further verification.

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis for the penalties were deleted, the penalties themselves could not survive. Therefore, the deletion of penalties by the Commissioner was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's conduct demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the matter and that the evidence regarding the genuineness of the society's activities was deficient. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance is called for on account of belated payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no specific evidence on record to prove that the transactions with M/s Lachhu Ram Aggarwal were bogus. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention and followed a coordinate bench's decision on an identical issue. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that advertisement and business promotion expenses are revenue in nature and not capital expenditure, as they do not create any enduring asset. The CIT(Appeals) rightly deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(Appeals) that the Assessee Education Society was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12. This was based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case by the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB is directory in nature, not mandatory. Since the report was filed before the completion of assessment, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed a petition for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine without adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee was an advance against the sale of property under an Agreement to Sale, which constituted a commercial transaction. Therefore, it did not fall under the ambit of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e).

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents which held that such deposits made before the return filing due date are allowable.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(Appeals) that the Assessee Education Society was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12. This was based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case by the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. It found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support the services rendered by Mr. Pandey. The fact that commission was only paid for government contracts, not private ones, further supported the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents which held that such deposits made before the return filing due date are allowable.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(Appeals) that the Assessee Education Society was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12. This was based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case by the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis for the penalties were deleted, the penalties themselves could not survive. Therefore, the deletion of penalties by the Commissioner was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the disputes had been resolved under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) between India and USA. Both parties were permitted to withdraw their grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not required if no exempt income is earned, remitting the issue to the AO for verification. It also held that Section 14A disallowance cannot be computed under Section 115JB. For disallowances under Section 36(1)(iii) and 37(1), the Tribunal found the AO's view erroneous regarding the onus of proof and remitted the issues for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the AO had tangible information to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, as the assessee did not file a return and failed to fully explain the source of funds. The reopening of assessment under Section 147 was deemed valid.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and that the service income was not taxable in India as per the India-USA DTAA. It also directed the CPC to grant the eligible TDS credit.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit plausible, especially since the Commissioner (Appeals) had already accepted a partial explanation. The Tribunal deleted the addition as it was made on conjecture and surmises.

The Tribunal held that while the CPC has limited jurisdiction under Section 143(1) and rectification under Section 154 is for obvious mistakes, appellate authorities have co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer. For substantial justice, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) to examine the assessee's claim afresh.