ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with Section 249(4)(a) by filing a return and paying taxes, making the CIT(A)'s dismissal unjustified. The Tribunal also noted issues with notice service and the absence of a Section 143(2) notice.

The Tribunal acknowledged that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has an overriding effect over the Income-tax Act. Consequently, all claims, including those of the Income-tax Department, are to be entertained by the Official Liquidator.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act by passing an ex-parte order without deciding the issue on merits. The tribunal also noted a violation of natural justice principles.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It applied the rule of consistency, noting that similar disallowances in prior years were deleted and that the Supreme Court's decision in Radhasoami Satsang supports maintaining a consistent view when facts and law remain unchanged.

The Tribunal held that the non-filing of written submissions alone is not sufficient grounds to uphold an addition. It also noted that it was unclear if the Commissioner (Appeals) had specifically requested documents. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions as the AO acted upon an unsigned, mistakenly uploaded ITAT order. Since the final ITAT order was passed much later, the consequential assessments were infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC was not sustainable as the assessee was not put to notice before making the adjustment under Section 143(1A). The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not applied his mind to the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that certain software development expenses and hardware purchases were capital in nature, while others were revenue. It also ruled that Explanation to Section 73 was not applicable for denying indexation benefit. The issue of set-off of brought forward losses was remanded.

The Tribunal held that common area maintenance charges are assessable under the head 'income from business' based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. These decisions relied on agreements for maintenance and the nature of services rendered.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the seized material pertained to a different financial year and did not constitute incriminating material for the assessment year in question. Therefore, the assessment under Section 153C was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition as the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus under Section 68, especially when notices were unserved and parties were found to be non-existent at the given addresses. Merely using account payee cheques is insufficient.

The Tribunal, relying on a CBDT circular, found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision. The CIT(A) had allowed the set off of losses, which the Tribunal upheld.

The Tribunal held that the same income cannot be taxed in two hands simultaneously and that once it is established that the income belongs to the beneficial owner (the first name in the joint account), it cannot be taxed in the hands of the other joint holder on a protective basis.

The Tribunal held that the same income cannot be taxed in two hands simultaneously and that once it is established that the income belongs to the beneficial owner (the first name in the joint account), it cannot be taxed in the hands of the other joint holder on a protective basis.

The Tribunal held that the same income cannot be taxed in two hands simultaneously and that once it is established that the income belongs to the beneficial owner (the first name in the joint account), it cannot be taxed in the hands of the other joint holder on a protective basis.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue cannot take different stands in different years and that consistency in approach is necessary. Since no disallowance was made in previous years for the same advance, the disallowance for the current year was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making additions when the original reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings had ceased to exist. The assessment order was considered bad in law as it went beyond the scope of the reasons for reopening.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was issued without satisfying the prerequisites of Section 147, as the reasons recorded did not prima facie indicate any escapement of income. The Assessing Officer also failed to deal with the assessee's objections properly.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had been claiming and receiving the deduction under Section 80IC from previous assessment years, the subsequent claim could not be denied without challenging the initial year's eligibility. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the Dunnage expenses as revenue expenditure. This was based on the distinction between 'ordinary Dunnage' with a single-year life and 'special Dunnage' with a longer life, which was capitalized.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions as the AO acted upon an unsigned, mistakenly uploaded ITAT order. Since the final ITAT order was passed much later, the consequential assessments were infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was issued without satisfying the prerequisites of Section 147, as the reasons recorded did not prima facie indicate any escapement of income. The Assessing Officer also failed to deal with the assessee's objections properly.

The Tribunal, after perusing the case records and considering the orders of the authorities below, found no error in the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal decided to proceed exparte.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions as the AO acted upon an unsigned, mistakenly uploaded ITAT order. Since the final ITAT order was passed much later, the consequential assessments were infructuous.

The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s findings, which had examined all aspects of the additions made by the AO. The assessee failed to appear for hearings despite repeated notices.

The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of delayed deposit of employee's share of PF and ESI dues, when deposited before the filing of the return of income, was not justified. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no fallacy in the reasoning that a company in operation must incur expenses for its subsistence, even if not actively engaged in business. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's additional ground regarding the jurisdictional issue, finding that the assessment under Section 153A was not valid as no search was conducted at the assessee's premises. Consequently, the disallowance of depreciation was not sustained.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from presenting his case before the lower authorities due to his duties and postings. The first appellate authority had not properly appreciated the submissions and evidence. Therefore, the issue was restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish supporting evidence. The penalty appeal was also set aside as there was no subsisting addition.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish supporting evidence. The penalty appeal was also set aside as there was no subsisting addition.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee deserved to be admitted and directed the CIT(A) to admit the evidence and pass a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The other grounds of appeal were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's additional ground regarding the jurisdictional issue, finding that the assessment under Section 153A was not valid as no search was conducted at the assessee's premises. Consequently, the disallowance of depreciation was not sustained.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear for hearings and had not filed any application to condone the delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear for hearings and had not filed any application to condone the delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IA for CCGPH units is allowable as it was decided in favour of the assessee in preceding years. The set off of losses was also allowed based on judicial precedents and CBDT circulars. The addition on account of downward revision of sales was deleted as it was covered by earlier orders. The addition for unrecognised income from BTPS was deleted as it was contingent and not realized.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s decision on delay. The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF/ESI deposited before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear for hearings and had not filed any application to condone the delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as being barred by limitation.

The assessee's authorized representative moved an application to withdraw the appeal as the tax demand was settled under the VSV Act, 2020. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on this concession.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear for hearings and had not filed any application to condone the delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal found that while the AO's approach of estimating profit was justified due to lack of books, the 8% rate was excessive. Considering industry benchmarks and operational aspects, the Tribunal determined a reasonable net profit of Rs. 1.25 per litre of milk sold.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that additions under Section 153A for completed assessment years require incriminating material. Since the Revenue failed to point out any fallacy or contrary binding decision, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) as the loss claimed was capital in nature and not deductible. The assessee's failure to appear or provide any counter-material led to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the claim of depreciation, even if disallowed, was a bona fide claim and did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied was deleted by the CIT(A), the penalty itself does not survive. Therefore, the penalty is to be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances for subscription fees and payments to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd. by following its own prior decisions. Similarly, disallowances related to remuneration to partners and expenses not paid in the relevant financial year were also decided in favour of the assessee based on previous rulings.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's additional ground regarding the jurisdictional issue, finding that the assessment under Section 153A was not valid as no search was conducted at the assessee's premises. Consequently, the disallowance of depreciation was not sustained.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances for subscription fees and payments to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd. by following its own prior decisions. Similarly, disallowances related to remuneration to partners and expenses not paid in the relevant financial year were also decided in favour of the assessee based on previous rulings.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IA for CCGPH units is allowable as it was decided in favour of the assessee in preceding years. The set off of losses was also allowed based on judicial precedents and CBDT circulars. The addition on account of downward revision of sales was deleted as it was covered by earlier orders. The addition for unrecognised income from BTPS was deleted as it was contingent and not realized.