ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to contradict the findings. The issue was squarely covered by the jurisdictional High Court's judgments.

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 that the assessee primarily relied on res judicata instead of proving the necessity of foreign expenses for its objects. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, requiring the assessee to justify these expenses and the applicability of Section 11(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the non-deduction of TDS on sub-contractor payments was a technical mistake, not a deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found no grounds to invoke penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

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 found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits and without following the procedural requirements of Section 250(6). The assessee claimed to have provided all necessary TDS details.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not constitute an enhancement requiring a notice. It accepted the assessee's alternative plea to limit the disallowance on business promotion and entertainment expenses to 25% of the sustained amount. The issue of depreciation disallowance was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

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 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 held that the delay was minuscule and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. They found no adverse material against the assessee's contention regarding the reasons for the delay.

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.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This withdrawal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the delay was minuscule and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. They found no adverse material against the assessee's contention regarding the reasons for the delay.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a due opportunity of being heard and that the CIT(A) had not decided the grounds of appeal on merits. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the adjudication of the issue in AY 2012-13 and relevant subsequent assessment years. The CIT(A) was directed to re-adjudicate the issue after allowing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity and assistance to the assessee, considering her circumstances as a widow with limited information.

The Tribunal held that the rental income from the composite lease should be treated as 'Income from Other Sources' and allowed deductions under Section 57 of the Act. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to examine the issue of non-granting of tax deducted at source.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim which is not allowable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had a bona fide reason for filing the return on an estimated basis due to its circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ad-hoc enhancement without material evidence was not sustainable. Relying on CBDT instructions and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal ruled against accepting surrenders without corroborating evidence. The appeals were decided based on these findings.

The CIT(A) correctly held that the satisfaction note and seized material did not pertain to the assessment year in question and were not incriminating for the additions made. Therefore, proceedings under Section 153C were not maintainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting the assessee's participation in the VSV Scheme. It also granted liberty to the assessee to seek reinstitution of the appeal if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Act.

The Tribunal held that adjustments made under Section 143(1) on debatable and controversial issues, especially concerning retrospective amendments, are beyond the scope of the section. Such adjustments were deemed unfair, unjust, and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that substantial expansion can indeed make the year of expansion a new 'initial assessment year' for claiming 100% deduction under Section 80IC. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Aarham Softronics, the CIT(A)'s order allowing 100% deduction was upheld.

The Tribunal held that adjustments made under Section 143(1) on debatable and controversial issues, especially concerning retrospective amendments, are beyond the scope of the section. Such adjustments were deemed unfair, unjust, and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ad-hoc enhancement without material evidence was not sustainable. Relying on CBDT instructions and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal ruled against accepting surrenders without corroborating evidence. The appeals were decided based on these findings.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of share/commodity market losses back to the AO for reconsideration based on the outcome of a pending court dispute. For the cessation of liability, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, finding Section 41(1) inapplicable. The issue of service payments was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that adjustments made under Section 143(1) on debatable and controversial issues, especially concerning retrospective amendments, are beyond the scope of the section. Such adjustments were deemed unfair, unjust, and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the issue of software and subscription receipts being treated as royalty had been decided in the assessee's favor in previous assessment years. Therefore, no addition was required for these grounds. The issue regarding the tax rate on interest income was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that since the addition of unsecured loans, which formed the basis for the penalty, was already deleted by the ITAT in the quantum appeal, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that interest and late registration charges related to land acquisition are capital in nature and should be capitalized. However, advertisement, brokerage, and commission expenses incurred after the business operations commenced are revenue expenses and should be allowed as deductions.

The Tribunal held that adjustments made under Section 143(1) on debatable and controversial issues, especially concerning retrospective amendments, are beyond the scope of the section. Such adjustments were deemed unfair, unjust, and bad in law.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that adjustments made under Section 143(1) on debatable and controversial issues, especially concerning retrospective amendments, are beyond the scope of the section. Such adjustments were deemed unfair, unjust, and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that adjustments made under Section 143(1) on debatable and controversial issues, especially concerning retrospective amendments, are beyond the scope of the section. Such adjustments were deemed unfair, unjust, and bad in law.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done because the substantive addition was made in the hands of another assessee, and the present appeal involved protective additions. The CIT(A) was directed to allow a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not filed inaccurate particulars of income as the expenses were duly recorded in the books of account and written off as a loss. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Reliance Petro Products, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal held that adjustments made under Section 143(1) on debatable and controversial issues, especially concerning retrospective amendments, are beyond the scope of the section. Such adjustments were deemed unfair, unjust, and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable because the basis for the penalty, which was the earlier additions, no longer existed after the revised assessment. The AO had accepted the returned income with a minor addition and did not intend to impose a penalty in the revised assessment.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed funds for acquiring a capital asset forms part of its cost of acquisition, and is deductible under Section 48. It also held that Section 54 exemption is allowable even if the residential house is constructed on agricultural land with appurtenant land.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done considering the assessee's residence abroad and her undertaking to appear and represent her case.

The Tribunal held that the omission was a bonafide and inadvertent mistake due to oversight, not an intentional concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the profit from the proprietorship concern was already offered to tax and should not be taxed again. It also held that interest on PPF and dividend income are exempt and were correctly disclosed as such by the assessee, thus the additions were erroneous.

The Tribunal held that adjustments made under Section 143(1) on debatable and controversial issues, especially concerning retrospective amendments, are beyond the scope of the section. Such adjustments were deemed unfair, unjust, and bad in law.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of Rs. 7,17,14,745/- to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of facts and accounts. Other grounds were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that payments in the nature of FTS to a Philippines tax resident, in the absence of a PE in India, are to be treated as business profits under Article 7 of the India-Philippines DTAA and are not taxable in India. Consequently, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source, and no disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was warranted.

The Tribunal held that adjustments made under Section 143(1) on debatable and controversial issues, especially concerning retrospective amendments, are beyond the scope of the section. Such adjustments were deemed unfair, unjust, and bad in law.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following previous decisions of coordinate benches. It held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when there is no exempt income, and similarly, notional interest on interest-free advances to a trust was not disallowed in prior years.

The Tribunal held that adjustments made under Section 143(1) on debatable and controversial issues, especially concerning retrospective amendments, are beyond the scope of the section. Such adjustments were deemed unfair, unjust, and bad in law.