ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submissions regarding tax payments by recipients, the nature of the payment, and income accrual. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the India-UK DTAA. It relied on previous ITAT decisions which affirmed the eligibility of fiscally transparent partnership firms to avail treaty benefits when their income is taxed in the hands of their partners.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the India-UK DTAA. It relied on previous ITAT decisions which affirmed the eligibility of fiscally transparent partnership firms to avail treaty benefits when their income is taxed in the hands of their partners.

The ITAT held that dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits is not permissible. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the receipt of cash for immovable property was hit by Section 269SS as amended. However, without the sale deed, it was unclear if the cash was received before or after the amendment, which is crucial for imposing the penalty. The Tribunal emphasized the need for an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submissions regarding tax payments by recipients, the nature of the payment, and income accrual. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the authenticity of the supplementary partnership deed and the allowability of partner's salary and interest, as the deed was produced before the PCIT. The AO was bound to comply with these limited directions.

The Tribunal restored the issue of statutory dues to the AO for verification of actual payment. It allowed the bonus paid to partners subject to verification of limits under Section 40(b). The ad-hoc disallowance of expenses was partly allowed, confirming the CIT(A)'s relief for certain expenses and deleting the rest.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond four years without fulfilling the conditions of the proviso to Section 147, specifically the requirement that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the addition made by the AO, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty order could not sustain. Therefore, the penalty was set aside.

The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The AO was directed to examine all the documents and materials produced by the assessee regarding the bad debt claim and pass an order in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal found that the AO's conclusion was not based on cogent evidence and was more in the nature of surmises. The Tribunal also noted that the potential gain from such alleged bogus purchases was insignificant given the assessee's large turnover.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to closing stock and disallowances. The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's cross-objection, setting aside additions sustained by the lower authorities as they were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given credit for the TDS as the employer's default in depositing TDS was being addressed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the government's claim was satisfied. Denying credit would lead to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the corpus donation is exempt under Section 11(1)(d) and the inadvertent error in showing it as income from other sources should not lead to its taxation, especially when the nature of receipt was not disputed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a 10% disallowance on food and beverage consumption and affirming the addition for capital expenditure. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the cancellation of penalty on the grounds that the additions were made on an estimated basis and no inaccurate particulars were furnished.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a 10% disallowance on food and beverage consumption and affirming the addition for capital expenditure. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the cancellation of penalty on the grounds that the additions were made on an estimated basis and no inaccurate particulars were furnished.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable if no exempt income is earned in the relevant assessment year. The recent amendment to Section 14A was held to be prospective.

The Tribunal noted that the documentary evidence for the loss on obsolete stationery was submitted for the first time before it. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration in light of the new evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in granting a 50% expenditure benefit as there was no basis for it. The AO was correct in adding the undisclosed cash deposits as income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for cash deposits, including opening balance and withdrawals, was largely accepted. The inability to produce one person for examination should not lead to the rejection of the entire claim.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as the AO had tangible material and the assessee failed to provide information. However, the addition was deleted as the assessee provided corroborative evidence for the gift, and the AO did not conduct sufficient inquiry, especially after the donor's death.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) within the stipulated time. This omission was not curable and rendered the reassessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were invalid due to the AO's non-application of mind and factual inconsistencies in the reasons recorded. The Tribunal also deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A) and the addition of commission income.

For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal quashed the assessment under Section 153A as it was a non-abated assessment year without incriminating material found during search. For AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13, the incentives were held to be capital receipts, not taxable income, based on the purpose of the scheme.

For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal quashed the assessment under Section 153A as it was a non-abated assessment year without incriminating material found during search. For AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13, the incentives were held to be capital receipts, not taxable income, based on the purpose of the scheme.

For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal quashed the assessment under Section 153A as it was a non-abated assessment year without incriminating material found during search. For AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13, the incentives were held to be capital receipts, not taxable income, based on the purpose of the scheme.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders due to the inordinate delay in serving the orders, which cast aspersions on fair play. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after giving proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders due to the inordinate delay in serving the orders, which cast aspersions on fair play. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after giving proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders due to the inordinate delay in serving the orders, which cast aspersions on fair play. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after giving proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders due to the inordinate delay in serving the orders, which cast aspersions on fair play. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after giving proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that no addition can be made under Section 153C if no incriminating material was found during the search that was handed over to the assessee's Assessing Officer. The addition made did not emanate from the seized material.

The Tribunal held that no addition can be made under Section 153C if no incriminating material was found during the search that was handed over to the assessee's Assessing Officer. The addition made did not emanate from the seized material.

The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure does not constitute an international transaction and deleted the related adjustment. For the purchase of finished goods, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to unconsidered facts. Depreciation claim was allowed, following earlier precedents.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed after the period of limitation, considering the delay in submission of the Special Audit Report. Therefore, the issue of limitation was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed after the period of limitation, considering the delay in submission of the Special Audit Report. Therefore, the issue of limitation was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation gain should be treated as operating income, aligning with previous decisions in the assessee's own cases. Regarding delayed receivables, the Tribunal ruled that no interest adjustment should be made as the assessee is largely debt-free with substantial reserves and surplus.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisional action was unsustainable as the assessment was limited to the specific issue raised, and the AO had duly examined it. The Tribunal also found that Section 68 was not applicable to the facts, thus precluding the invocation of Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the failure to obtain mandatory approval under Section 151(1) before issuing the notice under Section 148 vitiates the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the notice and the reassessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a commission agent, and only the commission income, not the gross turnover, should be considered for determining the applicability of Sections 44AA and 44AB. Since the commission income was below the threshold, the penalties were not leviable.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was framed under Section 143(3), it implied that the AO considered the subsequent compliances as good and ignored earlier defaults. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to annul the assessment order. The addition was not based on any incriminating material pertaining to the assessment year found during the search, as required by Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of loans were not justified. The CIT(A)'s reasoning that the lender's bank account had higher credits than the loan amount was considered insufficient to deem the loan bogus, especially given the evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, signifying an end to the disputes for the covered issues.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, signifying an end to the disputes for the covered issues.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the AO were bad in law as they did not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had acted bona fide and the claim was allowed in past assessment years.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition by relying on a previous year's order without independent inquiry, despite stating that each assessment year is a separate unit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh decision after independent inquiries.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was passed ex-parte and that the assessee claimed a lack of proper opportunity. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Following those precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Following those precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.